GMAT Question:- A recent review of pay scales indicates

[Guest]

Please explain the answer of this

A recent review of pay scales indicates that CEO’s now earn an average of 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, compared to a ratio of 42 times in 1980.

A. that CEO’s now earn an average of 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, compared to a ratio of 42 times
B. that, on average, CEO’s now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, a ratio that compares to 42 times
C. that, on average, CEO’s now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, as compared to 42 times their pay, the ratio
D. CEO’s who now earn on average 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, as compared to 42 times their pay, the ratio
E. CEO’s now earning an average of 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, compared to the ratio of 42 times

How to eliminate between B and C . "indicates" should have "that"; hence D and E eliminated and A is wrong because it compares salary with blue -collar workers

GMAT Prep question

[RonPurewal]

choice b is badly worded: 'compares to 42 times in 1980' seems to say that, on forty-two different occasions in 1980, the ceo:blue-collar ratio reached 419:1. this is not what we are trying to say.

more generally, when speaking about ratios as is done here, you cannot leave 'times' hanging like this. sometimes you can use pronouns - the height of the sears tower is more than four times that of the statue of liberty - but you can't use empty space.

choice c exhibits proper usage of 'times' followed by their pay. it also uses the ratio, a correct identification of exactly what is being described.

[Saurabh Malpani]

Please explain the answer of this

A recent review of pay scales indicates that CEO’s now earn an average of 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, compared to a ratio of 42 times in 1980.

A. that CEO’s now earn an average of 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, compared to a ratio of 42 times
B. that, on average, CEO’s now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, a ratio that compares to 42 times
C. that, on average, CEO’s now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, as compared to 42 times their pay, the ratio
D. CEO’s who now earn on average 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, as compared to 42 times their pay, the ratio
E. CEO’s now earning an average of 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, compared to the ratio of 42 times

How to eliminate between B and C . "indicates" should have "that"; hence D and E eliminated and A is wrong because it compares salary with blue -collar workers

GMAT Prep question

Isn't the reason--A is wrong because it compares salary with blue -collar workers---Incorrect? Ron earns 10 times more than Bush. Isn't this correct?

Saurabh Malpani

[RonPurewal]

Please explain the answer of this

A recent review of pay scales indicates that CEO’s now earn an average of 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, compared to a ratio of 42 times in 1980.

A. that CEO’s now earn an average of 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, compared to a ratio of 42 times
B. that, on average, CEO’s now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, a ratio that compares to 42 times
C. that, on average, CEO’s now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, as compared to 42 times their pay, the ratio
D. CEO’s who now earn on average 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, as compared to 42 times their pay, the ratio
E. CEO’s now earning an average of 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, compared to the ratio of 42 times

How to eliminate between B and C . "indicates" should have "that"; hence D and E eliminated and A is wrong because it compares salary with blue -collar workers

GMAT Prep question

Isn't the reason--A is wrong because it compares salary with blue -collar workers---Incorrect? Ron earns 10 times more than Bush. Isn't this correct?

Saurabh Malpani

yeah, i think you're right: the comparison made in choice a is ok. it's not quite as ideally worded as the comparison in choices b-c-d, but, as can be seen in saurabh's ron/bush example, it's fine.

the real problems with choice a:
- 'the ratio of 42 times' is redundant; it'd be good enough just to say '42 times'. note that the word 'ratio' is not redundant in choices c-d, since it's being used as a modifier to make a logical connection.
- it doesn't say 42 times what. not only is that unacceptably vague, but it also breaks parallelism.

[GK]

choice b is badly worded: 'compares to 42 times in 1980' seems to say that, on forty-two different occasions in 1980, the ceo:blue-collar ratio reached 419:1. this is not what we are trying to say.

more generally, when speaking about ratios as is done here, you cannot leave 'times' hanging like this. sometimes you can use pronouns - the height of the sears tower is more than four times that of the statue of liberty - but you can't use empty space.

choice c exhibits proper usage of 'times' followed by their pay. it also uses the ratio, a correct identification of exactly what is being described.

Ron,

Isn't the meaning of the original sentence changed in every answer choice except for in A & D?

A states that X earn an average of 419 times more pay than Y (= Y + 419*Y)

Choices B C & E state that X earn 419 times of Y (= 419*Y)

Can you please elaborate? Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

Ron,

Isn't the meaning of the original sentence changed in every answer choice except for in A & D?

A states that X earn an average of 419 times more pay than Y (= Y + 419*Y)

Choices B C & E state that X earn 419 times of Y (= 419*Y)

Can you please elaborate? Thanks.

you are my new best friend.

i have been on a personal mission to heighten world awareness of the difference between x times as much as y and x times more than y for approximately the last fifteen years, so it's good to see that i have some assistance in my efforts.

yes, you are correct. so that we can commiserate about the verbal question writers' ignorance of mathematics, i'll give you the following response, which may or may not satisfy your gmat conscience:
these are sentence correction problems, not mathematics problems; therefore, their solutions will not rest upon mathematical nuances.

i don't like it any more than you do, but it is what it is. :(

[GK]

Ron,

Isn't the meaning of the original sentence changed in every answer choice except for in A & D?

A states that X earn an average of 419 times more pay than Y (= Y + 419*Y)

Choices B C & E state that X earn 419 times of Y (= 419*Y)

Can you please elaborate? Thanks.

you are my new best friend.

i have been on a personal mission to heighten world awareness of the difference between x times as much as y and x times more than y for approximately the last fifteen years, so it's good to see that i have some assistance in my efforts.

yes, you are correct. so that we can commiserate about the verbal question writers' ignorance of mathematics, i'll give you the following response, which may or may not satisfy your gmat conscience:
these are sentence correction problems, not mathematics problems; therefore, their solutions will not rest upon mathematical nuances.

i don't like it any more than you do, but it is what it is. :(

It is what it is :) GMAT's the boss!

[StaceyKoprince]

yep, that's the mantra!
:)

[H]

Hi,

I have trouble whenever I see a structure like "S+V+O, compared to/with X]"
What does X compare to/with? The subject of the preceding clause? The object of the preceding clause? Is there a grammar rule restricting what X can be compared to?
Also, what's the function of "as"? Referring to the preceding clause? Or can I just drop "as" without affecting the meaning?
Thanks in advance.

[tathagat]

Hi,
Could someone here clarify, why is CEO's used? Shouldn't it have been CEOs ???

Also, in C, the pronoun "their" causes ambiguity: it is not clear whether it refers to CEOs or workers!

Please clarify!

[RonPurewal]

Hi,

I have trouble whenever I see a structure like "S+V+O, compared to/with X]"
What does X compare to/with? The subject of the preceding clause? The object of the preceding clause? Is there a grammar rule restricting what X can be compared to?
Also, what's the function of "as"? Referring to the preceding clause? Or can I just drop "as" without affecting the meaning?
Thanks in advance.

you should use GRAMMATICAL AND LOGICAL PARALLELISM to determine what 'x' is being compared to. in this case, 'x' is '42 times their pay', which is, grammatically and logically, plainly comparable to "419 times the pay of blue-collar workers".
context is king - both grammatical and semantic context, in this case.

i'm not sure of the gmat's opinion on whether you can simply drop the 'as', but you can definitely ignore it when you consider the meaning of the sentence.

[RonPurewal]

Hi,
Could someone here clarify, why is CEO's used? Shouldn't it have been CEOs ???

Also, in C, the pronoun "their" causes ambiguity: it is not clear whether it refers to CEOs or workers!

Please clarify!

that sort of punctuation issue, which is hotly debated among english-language authorities, will DEFINITELY not show up on the test. rest assured.
same deal with the ongoing heated debate over the best way to write out the names of decades. 80s? '80s? 80's? '80's? i've seen all of these propounded by reputable sources, but, fortunately for you, you won't have to make the call.

remember that you're playing by their rules here, not yours. apparently, according to their rules, the pronoun 'their' is just fine in this context.
the best reason i can give - actually the second-best reason, after 'because they said so' - is because of the EXTREMELY strong logical parallelism between '42 times their pay' and '419 times the pay of blue-collar workers'. that absolute parallelism compels the pronoun and antecedent to be parallel as well.

[lawrence]

Great!

MGMAT, my best friend to overcome the GMAT.

I will take my 3rd try in 2 weeks, wish I can make big step with MGMAT's help.

BTW, I bought the GMAT CAT 2 months ago. :-)

I love MGMAT!

[dps]

I have a problem understanding sentence structure of correct answer

C. that, on average, CEO’s now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, as compared to 42 times their pay, the ratio in 1980.

What is "as compared to 42 times their pay" modifying?
And I think "the ratio in 1980" is modifying "42 times their pay" noun phrase. Correct?

In some of the correct answers, I have even seen structure as below. I just made it up, so can be wrong due to other reasons. But please explain if this structure is correct

In spite of bad economy, CEO's earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, increasing the wage gap

I think "In spite blah blah blue collar workers" is case of split predicate, Equivalent to CEO's earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers in spite of bad economy
And "increasing the wage gap" is adverbial modifier for earn. Is this analysis correct?

[StaceyKoprince]

The "as compared to" indicates a comparison, with the format X, as compared to Y. One is not modifying the other - rather, the two are being compared in a parallel manner.

For the new sentence that you made up, yes, that's an example of a split predicate - you can move that opener to after that subject. Also, yes, a "comma -ing" set-up modifies the preceding verb or the entire preceding clause.