number of foreign-born residents and their children

[herogmat]

In the United States, while the number of foreign-born residents and their children is higher than ever, the percentage of the population they represent is not; in 1910 this group made up 35 percent of the population when compared to 20 percent in 2000.
A. population when compared to 20 percent in 2000
B. population as compared to 2000, when it was 20 percent
C. population, comparing it with 20 percent in 2000
D. population, unlike 2000, with 20 percent
E. population, compared with 20 percent in 2000

OA is E. Why other options are wrong ?
Please help to understand the usages of 'compared to' and 'compare with'.

-hg

[herogmat]

Can anybody please help me with this ?

[korde.ashish]

can anyone suggest the answer

[ctrajaram]

Somone feel free to correct me or chip in

We can use "compare with" to show diffeences between like items or things being compared


"Compare to" to show similarities between unlike things

E

in 1910 this group made up 35 percent of the population, compared with 20 percent in 2000

Logical and grammatically correct comparison

[selva.e]

In the United States, while the number of foreign-born residents and their children is higher than ever, the percentage of the population they represent is not, in 1910 this group made up 35 percent of the population when compared to 20 percent in 2000.
A. population when compared to 20 percent in 2000
B. population as compared to 2000, when it was 20 percent
C. population, comparing it with 20 percent in 2000
D. population, unlike 2000, with 20 percent
E. population, compared with 20 percent in 2000

OA is E. Why other options are wrong ?
Please help to understand the usages of 'compared to' and 'compare with'.

-hg

right on target ctrajaram!

A - 'compared to' is a wrong usage
B - same as A, wordy, unnecessary use of 'it'
C - 'it' not needed
D - like/unlike used to compare noun/noun phrase
E - on Target

[RonPurewal]

two things.

(1)
i really, really doubt that the gmat will EVER require the distinction between "compare to" and "compare with" to eliminate a wrong answer.
there's just not ANY sort of substantial agreement among authorities on this particular issue. in fact, if you poke around common authoritative sources, many of them actually contradict each other.
for instance, the rule that has been propounded by ctrajaram (below) is out there. but there's also a contradictory rule that says that "compare to" is for similarities OR differences, and that "compare with" is only used when you're talking about BOTH similarities and differences.

in any case, so far there have been NO official problems actually RELYING on this difference. so:
do not use "compare to" vs. "compare with" to eliminate answer choices. instead, find some other criterion on which to make the decision.

(2)
there should be a SEMICOLON between "not" and "in 1910". if there's a comma there (as you've indicated), then this is a run-on sentence.

i will assume that this comma is supposed to be a semicolon in the following.

A. population when compared to 20 percent in 2000

the "when" here kills this answer choice.

remember that you have to read very literally.
if you read the "when" literally, then you'd be saying that the 1910 immigrant group made up 35% of the population WHEN THEY WERE COMPARED to 20 percent (of something we haven't even specified) in 2000. of course, this makes no literal sense whatsoever.

B. population as compared to 2000, when it was 20 percent

nothing to which the pronoun "it" can refer.

C. population, comparing it with 20 percent in 2000

this is a COMMA + -ING modifier.
these modifiers modify the ENTIRE PRECEDING CLAUSE, and the verbal (in this case "comparing") is attributed to the subject of the preceding clause.
therefore, according to this answer choice, "this group" actually compared "it" (we're not sure what "it" is) with 20 percent - and did so in 2000 (even though they were in 1910).

D. population, unlike 2000, with 20 percent

"unlike 2000" suggests that there is a direct comparison between "this group" (the subject of the preceding sentence) and the year 2000. that's a nonparallel comparison.
also, the preposition "with" isn't parallel to anything.

E. population, compared with 20 percent in 2000

valid comparison between two percentages.

note the parallel constructions "in 1910" and "in 2000", and also note the lack of the fatal alterations of meaning that exist in (a) and (c).

[herogmat]

Thanks Ron for the detailed explanation.

[vjsharma25]

B. population as compared to 2000, when it was 20 percent

nothing to which the pronoun "it" can refer.

Isn't "it" refers to "this group" in (B)population as compared to 2000, when it was 20 percent "it" is at the subject position?

And also will the comparison(only comparison part) be proper if in "(B)population as compared to 2000, when it was 20 percent" we replace "to 2000" with "in 2000"?

[RonPurewal]

B. population as compared to 2000, when it was 20 percent

nothing to which the pronoun "it" can refer.

Isn't "it" refers to "this group" in (B)population as compared to 2000, when it was 20 percent "it" is at the subject position?

you can't say that a group of people "is 20 percent" with nothing afterward; that's technically not a true statement. the only thing that can BE "20 percent" (alone, not followed by anything) is a literal percentage/fraction/proportion.
e.g.
the proportion of the firm's employees with latino heritage was 10% five years ago; now, it (= the proportion) is 14%.

on the other hand, it's perfectly ok to say that a group is 20% *OF* some other group.
in summary:
Group X is 20% --> doesn't make sense.
Group X is 20% of Group Y --> makes sense.

--

analogy:
i am six feet --> nonsense; the only thing that can "BE six feet" is a height, length, perimeter, etc.
i am six feet tall --> this is ok.

And also will the comparison(only comparison part) be proper if in "(B)population as compared to 2000, when it was 20 percent" we replace "to 2000" with "in 2000"?

no.
"compare(d) to" and "compare(d) with" are legitimate idioms; "compare(d) in" is unidiomatic.

[vjsharma25]

Hi Ron,
Thanks for the Nice explanation. But my only concern was for the referent of "it" which I think(seems you too agree) refers to the "the group",but produce an illogical sentence(as you explained).
Why I asked this question was because you mentioned that "it" has no referent.So wanted to clear this thought.

And also will the comparison(only comparison part) be proper if in "(B)population as compared to 2000, when it was 20 percent" we replace "to 2000" with "in 2000"?

no.
"compare(d) to" and "compare(d) with" are legitimate idioms; "compare(d) in" is unidiomatic.

What about "compared to IN 2000"? Is this construction absurd or legitimate?

I know that "compare(d) to" and "compare(d) with" should be followed by a noun,but still the above question :)

[tim]

there is nothing logical that "it" can refer to. that's the main issue here. and you cannot compare something to in something..

[ntr1989512]

the "when" here kills this answer choice.

remember that you have to read very literally.
if you read the "when" literally, then you'd be saying that the 1910 immigrant group made up 35% of the population WHEN THEY WERE COMPARED to 20 percent (of something we haven't even specified) in 2000. of course, this makes no literal sense whatsoever.

HI ron
in your sentence "THEY" means "group" or" the 1910 immigrant group" right? because the "group" is the object of this sentence. my interpretation is correct?

[RonPurewal]

the "when" here kills this answer choice.

remember that you have to read very literally.
if you read the "when" literally, then you'd be saying that the 1910 immigrant group made up 35% of the population WHEN THEY WERE COMPARED to 20 percent (of something we haven't even specified) in 2000. of course, this makes no literal sense whatsoever.

HI ron
in your sentence "THEY" means "group" or" the 1910 immigrant group" right? because the "group" is the object of this sentence. my interpretation is correct?

yeah, sorry, i guess i should have written "it" instead of "they", since a group is singular. (i don't always post here with perfect grammar; i would be a lot less efficient if i tried to do that, and my posts would probably be harder to understand if they were too formal.)

[ntr1989512]

the "when" here kills this answer choice.

remember that you have to read very literally.
if you read the "when" literally, then you'd be saying that the 1910 immigrant group made up 35% of the population WHEN THEY WERE COMPARED to 20 percent (of something we haven't even specified) in 2000. of course, this makes no literal sense whatsoever.

HI ron
in your sentence "THEY" means "group" or" the 1910 immigrant group" right? because the "group" is the object of this sentence. my interpretation is correct?

yeah, sorry, i guess i should have written "it" instead of "they", since a group is singular. (i don't always post here with perfect grammar; i would be a lot less efficient if i tried to do that, and my posts would probably be harder to understand if they were too formal.)

thanks ron! you are great helpful

[mylittled2008]

Hi,
First of all, we should find out the meaning of this sentence:
According to the sentence, the author want to make a comparison
between the 35 percent and xx percent.

Then we should check out all the following choices:
A. "when compared to" is wrong
B. "as compared to" is wrong, we usually don't use "as" this way
C. the pronoun "it" doesn't have an antecedent
D. "2000" is compared with "35 percent", wrong
E. "35 percent" is compared with "20 percent", right

compare with & compare to can be used:
compared with/to X, Y: X and Y must be parallel

In my opinion, "compared with/to" function as "like"

And the difference between "compare with" and "compare to" is ignored by GMAT.

Ron, is there any possibility that "compare with/to" can be followed by a sentence?