Need help with a problem , SC # 4 in og 11th edition
A survey by the national councile of churchese showed that in 1986 there were 20763 female ministers . almost 9 percent of the nation's clergy , twice as much as 1977
a twice as much as 1977
b twice as many as 1977
c double what it was in 1977
d double the figure for 1977
correct ans is d . I knew why the others is wrong , But Why " double " shouldn't it be doubled . Since the whole sentence is using past tense ..
Some quantities, such as people, can be counted; other quantities, such as repsect, cannot. It can be said that a person earned much respect, or that many people attended an event. Here, much is incorrectly applied ot the ministers. As 1977 incorrectly completes the comparsion; it would have to be as many as in 1977, which is not one of the possible answers. Another way to make the comparsion emphasizes the number, 20,736; a number can be doubled. Double the figure for 1977 places the focus on the number and correctly completes the comparsion.
A. Much incorrectly refers to ministers; as should be as in B. As 1977 does not correctly complete this comparsion; it should be as in 1977 C. What it was is awkward, wordy and unclear D. Correct. Double the figure places the emphasis of the sentence on the number of ministers; for 1977 correctly completes the comparsion. E. Wordy and awkward construction
I think that it is a matter of diction. To me, "double" is a transition verb, which means to make twice as many. For example, my company doubled my salary. The government doubled the tax. Here we are looking for a quantitative state of describing the increase in female ministers. Twice should be used instead of double.
here comes my question, since it is a complete sentence before the word "almost",why not use doubling? If double is correct,where is the conjunction between these two sentences?