Is running good for health ?

[abhasjha]

Compared to those who do not, running three days a week saves an average of 14.1 percent on health-care costs each year in the United States.

A. Compared to those who do not, running three days a week saves

B. Compared with nonrunners, people who run three days a week save

C. Compared to not running, those running for three days a week save

D. When compared with those who do not, people running three days a week save

E. When compared to nonrunners, running three days a week saves

[sunny.jain]

IMO : B

there is a split.

First idiom : Compared to/compared with.

Compared with is correct, we are comparing people with people.

Even if you dont know about the idiom, see the end of underline sentence.

Save Vs saves : Subject verb agreement : people --> save

so A,C and E are out.

D changes the meaning by saying that

runners save money only when compared with non-runners.

B sounds great even after flipping.

people who run three days a week,compared with non-runners, save an average of 14.1 percent on health-care costs each year in the United States.

[ayushrastogi82]

Abhas, as se rule, you need to mention the source of your question for instructors to reply!!

A, C and E are out because of wrong comparision. Comparision should be between apple to apple.

Now between B and D, IMO B.

In D, 'when compared to/with X, Y' is wrong as per manhattan guide.

OA please!!

[abhasjha]

OA - B

[RonPurewal]

Compared to those who do not, running three days a week saves an average of 14.1 percent on health-care costs each year in the United States.

A. Compared to those who do not, running three days a week saves

B. Compared with nonrunners, people who run three days a week save

C. Compared to not running, those running for three days a week save

D. When compared with those who do not, people running three days a week save

E. When compared to nonrunners, running three days a week saves

this problem involves a COMPARISON.

comparisons must be EXACTLY and LITERALLY PARALLEL.

(a) isn't parallel: it compares people ("those who do not...") with running itself.
(c) isn't parallel: it compares "not running" with people ("those running for...")
(e) isn't parallel: it compares people "nonrunners" with running itself.

--

(d) and (e) also misuse "when". you cannot use "when" unless you are literally talking about the timeframe in which an event takes place.

according to (d) and (e), these savings are only realized when someone is actually making the comparison. (i.e., only when someone else is looking at the statistics, comparing them, do these people actually save money!)

[anthonymok930]

Answer choice C: can you assume those refer to people even the word people is not explicitly written? Since those is a demonstrative pronoun, I remember that you can use it right before a noun and it will act as an adjective of the noun. For example, these cars, those students and etc. Otherwise, the demonstrative pronoun will be ambiguous. However, those running doesn't make sense in my opinion unless you can assume that it means "those people running for three days a week save..."

[RonPurewal]

Answer choice C: can you assume those refer to people even the word people is not explicitly written? Since those is a demonstrative pronoun, I remember that you can use it right before a noun and it will act as an adjective of the noun. For example, these cars, those students and etc. Otherwise, the demonstrative pronoun will be ambiguous. However, those running doesn't make sense in my opinion unless you can assume that it means "those people running for three days a week save..."

(c) is one of the wrong answers. so, if you see a construction in there that looks wrong (and you know what you're talking about), then it's probably wrong.

i believe you are correct: i don't think you can use "those" in this sentence without having "people" elsewhere in the construction (parallel).

the real issue with (c) is that "those..." is compared to "not running". that is not a valid comparison.

[428lmy]

Ron, i want to further ask something about the structure' when compared with...'
(from prep)
Results from the 1998 National Demographic and Health Survey confirm that, even when compared with densely populated countries like Thailand and Indonesia, the Philippine nation's fertility rates consistently exceed all of its Southeast Asian neighbors.

(A) like Thailand and Indonesia, the Philippine nation's fertility rates consistently exceed all of
(B) like Thailand and Indonesia, the Philippine nation consistently exhibits fertility rates exceeding all
(C) such as Thailand and Indonesia, the fertility rates exhibited by the Philippine nation are consistently exceeding those of all
(D) such as Thailand and Indonesia, the Philippine nation's fertility rates consistently exceed all those of
(E) such as Thailand and Indonesia, the Philippine nation consistently exhibits fertility rates that exceed those of all

OA is E
however,in this sentence , gmat uses the structure'when compared with'.
According to your lecture above, fertility rates in Philippine only exceed those of its Southeast Asian neighbors only when we compare the rates .
The meaning is really absurd, so how can this sentence make sence?

Thank you very much indeed!

[RonPurewal]

Ron, i want to further ask something about the structure' when compared with...'
(from prep)
Results from the 1998 National Demographic and Health Survey confirm that, even when compared with densely populated countries like Thailand and Indonesia, the Philippine nation's fertility rates consistently exceed all of its Southeast Asian neighbors.

(A) like Thailand and Indonesia, the Philippine nation's fertility rates consistently exceed all of
(B) like Thailand and Indonesia, the Philippine nation consistently exhibits fertility rates exceeding all
(C) such as Thailand and Indonesia, the fertility rates exhibited by the Philippine nation are consistently exceeding those of all
(D) such as Thailand and Indonesia, the Philippine nation's fertility rates consistently exceed all those of
(E) such as Thailand and Indonesia, the Philippine nation consistently exhibits fertility rates that exceed those of all

OA is E
however,in this sentence , gmat uses the structure'when compared with'.
According to your lecture above, fertility rates in Philippine only exceed those of its Southeast Asian neighbors only when we compare the rates .
The meaning is really absurd, so how can this sentence make sence?

Thank you very much indeed!

Hi --

since this is a new problem, please go ahead and create a new thread for it, per the forum rules. I'll be able to comment more fully when you do so.

For now, here's the short answer: "even when" is not the same thing as just "when".
If you say "X even when Y", then this implies that X is the case all of the time; there is just some sort of irony or special significance to the fact that X is true even when Y is true.
on the other hand, if you say "X when Y", you are stating some sort of relationship between the two events. This is presumably what you are thinking about.

[zarak_khan]

Hi Ron,

Am I correct with the following?

"Compare to" is used when referrring to similarities between unlike things
Example 1: John compared me to a smart computer

"Compare with" is used when referring to two like things to discern their similarities or differences:
Example 1: The police compared the forged signature with the original.
Example 2: The committee will have to compare the Senate’s version of the bill with the version that was passed by the House.

Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,

Am I correct with the following?

"Compare to" is used when referrring to similarities between unlike things
Example 1: John compared me to a smart computer

"Compare with" is used when referring to two like things to discern their similarities or differences:
Example 1: The police compared the forged signature with the original.
Example 2: The committee will have to compare the Senate’s version of the bill with the version that was passed by the House.

Thanks!

nope. as far as the gmat is concerned, "compare to" and "compare with" are EXACTLY the same.
no difference whatsoever. none at all.

our 2007-edition strategy guides were guilty of making this false distinction, but we have since rectified the situation.

[poonamchiK]

Hey Ron,
sorry for digging up an old thread.
I am still confused with these 2 idioms 'compared to' and compared with'.

Do you mean to say that if written correctly in sentene B, it would be acceptable?

Thx
P

[RonPurewal]

Hey Ron,
sorry for digging up an old thread.
I am still confused with these 2 idioms 'compared to' and compared with'.

Do you mean to say that if written correctly in sentene B, it would be acceptable?

Thx
P

as stated in the immediately preceding post -- as far as the gmat is concerned, "compare to" and "compare with" are EXACTLY the same.
if a sentence is correct with one of these idioms, then it's also correct with the other.

[thesilentwall]

Sorry for digging up the old question.

I accept that B is the right answer, but just want to clarify a thing.

The question is comparing people 'who run three days a week' and people who 'do not' (people who 'do not' could be running less or not running at all).

I eliminated (B) because I thought it changed the meaning of the original sentence. It's comparing people who do not run at all (nonrunners) to people who run three days a week.

Could somebody please help explain. Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

in terms of meaning, the only necessary distinction is "reasonable meaning vs. nonsense meaning". the meaning of the original is immaterial; any sentence with a meaning that makes sense in context, and that isn't too farfetched or implausible, is acceptable.

put another way, it should never make a difference which choice happens to be choice (a); if you rearrange the answer choices, the problem should still have the same correct answer.