Jump to content
Urch Forums

A recent review of pay scales indicates


Recommended Posts

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.

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

OA

B

Pls help

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • that CEO’s now earn an average of 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, compared to a ratio of 42 times what is being compared is not clear
  • that, on average, CEO’s now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, a ratio that compares to 42 times Correct
  • that, on average, CEO’s now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, as compared to 42 times their pay, the ratio "their" has no clear referrent
  • CEO’s who now earn on average 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, as compared to 42 times their pay, the ratio
  • CEO’s now earning an average of 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, compared to the ratio of 42 times

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure about the source of the question, but usage of apostrophe to make an abbreviation plural is wrong. Plural of CEO will be CEOs, not CEO's.

 

Traditionally the apostrophe has been used with -s to form the plural of abbreviations, symbols, numerals, words as words, and letters:

 

MBA's

too many !'s

the 1960's

no if's, and's, or but's

four i's in Mississippi

 

In more modern style the apostrophe is usually omitted:

 

MBAs

too many !s

the 1960s

no ifs, ands, or buts

 

Sometimes, however, omitting the apostrophe can lead to confusion:

 

four is in Mississippi

 

You will see this pluralizing apostrophe in most official GMAT material, as in the GMATPrep SC item under discussion in this thread. I have noticed, however, that in the latest printing of the OG, this pluralizing apostrophe has disappeared. CR #1, for example (page 468) in earlier printings has "1970's" and in the latest printing has "1970s".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • that CEO’s now earn an average of 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, compared to a ratio of 42 times -- CEO earning is compared to ratio

  • that, on average, CEO’s now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, a ratio that compares to 42 times best answer

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

  • CEO’s who now earn on average 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, as compared to 42 times their pay, the ratio that missing

  • CEO’s now earning an average of 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, compared to the ratio of 42 times that missing

I will go with b

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In GMATPrep the credited response to this SC is C.

 

Bob i agree with C but I thought we needed compared with instead of compare to. Please correct me

compare to When the results of comparison is not relevant then use compare to else use compare with

eg The economy can be compared to a stallion charging at the gate.

 

compare with

is used to place two things side by side for the purpose of examining their similarities or differences

eg It would be interesting to compare Purdue with Ohio State

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob i agree with C but I thought we needed compared with instead of compare to. Please correct me

compare to When the results of comparison is not relevant then use compare to else use compare with

eg The economy can be compared to a stallion charging at the gate.

 

compare with

is used to place two things side by side for the purpose of examining their similarities or differences

eg It would be interesting to compare Purdue with Ohio State

 

 

This distinction between "compare to" and "compare with" is in reality not strictly observed, and more important, this SC is proof that it is not observed by GMAT writers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey uys i am still confused between B & C. Can anybody explain that is "their" in C correct . I think it does not have a clear referent. as it could mean the Ceo's or the "workers"

 

Sometimes we get so hung up on potentially ambiguous pronoun reference that we lose our common sense.

 

"...CEO’s now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, as compared to 42 times their pay..."

 

Would anyone reading the above words in real life be even momentarily confused as to the referent of "their"? The two phrases "419 times the pay of blue-collar workers" and "42 times their pay" are so parallel that it is (I think) perfectly clear that "their" refers to "blue-collar workers". Furthermore, would it make any sense to say "CEO's earned 42 times the pay of CEO's"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traditionally the apostrophe has been used with -s to form the plural of abbreviations, symbols, numerals, words as words, and letters:

 

MBA's

too many !'s

the 1960's

no if's, and's, or but's

four i's in Mississippi

 

In more modern style the apostrophe is usually omitted:

 

MBAs

too many !s

the 1960s

no ifs, ands, or buts

 

Sometimes, however, omitting the apostrophe can lead to confusion:

 

four is in Mississippi

 

You will see this pluralizing apostrophe in most official GMAT material, as in the GMATPrep SC item under discussion in this thread. I have noticed, however, that in the latest printing of the OG, this pluralizing apostrophe has disappeared. CR #1, for example (page 468) in earlier printings has "1970's" and in the latest printing has "1970s".

 

I agree with you that apostrophe is used to form some plurals such as for letters, symbols, and digits.

e.g. She received four A's on her report cards.

 

But using apostrophe for forming plurals of decades and abbreviations is no longer considered correct.

 

EditFast Grammar Resource: Apostrophes: Forming Plurals

 

Also, don't you think using CEO's to form plural of CEO can unnecessarily add to ambiguity. CEO's can be misinterpreted as possessive form of CEO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you that apostrophe is used to form some plurals such as for letters, symbols, and digits.

e.g. She received four A's on her report cards.

 

But using apostrophe for forming plurals of decades and abbreviations is no longer considered correct.

 

EditFast Grammar Resource: Apostrophes: Forming Plurals

 

Also, don't you think using CEO's to form plural of CEO can unnecessarily add to ambiguity. CEO's can be misinterpreted as possessive form of CEO.

 

I predict that within 20 years the apostrophe will all but disappear. If there's no difference in pronunciation between boys and boy's and boys', why must there be a difference in writing? Today the primary purpose of the apostrophe is to enable those of us who know how to use it "correctly" to feel superior to those pitiful "illiterates" who don't know the difference between its and it's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

agree with Yogesh ..

 

compare to : for similarities and compare with : for differences ..

 

in this case, compare with seems to be more appropriate ....current salary of CEOs is compared with corresponding salary in 1980 .. essence is difference ...

 

BUT all the choices use COMPARE TO so we have pick the best of given ... C is the best .... in B, ration is compared to 42 times ...wrong .. more over 42 times of ??? option C corrects these 2 errors ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The choice is between:

 

(B) ...CEO’s now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, a ratio that compares to 42 times in 1980.

 

and:

 

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

 

Choice B is confusing. Is it saying that something happened 42 times in 1980? Or is it saying that the ratio is comparing in 1980?

 

Choice B is makes an imprecise comparison of "ratio" with "42 times", whereas choice C makes a more logical, parallel comparison of "419 times the pay of blue-collar workers" with "42 times their pay".

 

Potential problems with choice C:

 

1. reference of "they"? As I explained above, that's not really a problem.

2. "compared to"? It's a myth perpetuated by usage writers that "compared to" can be used only to point out similarities. The fact is that "compared to" and "compared with" are used with roughly equal frequency to point out differences. And the more significant fact is that every answer choice uses "compares/compared to", and so that is obviously not an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

This is a gem of an SC...

B. A recent review of pay scales indicates that, on average, CEO’s now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, a ratio that compares to 42 times in 1980

C. A recent review of pay scales indicates 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

 

B and C are two close answers. I chose C because C does a better job in comparing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.

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

Now I am confused . I picked up A. Why?

I feel "419 times the pay " is incorrect and "419 times more pay" is CORRECT.

 

I picked up this reasoning from OG 10 Q199.

199. Because the Earth's crust is more solid there and thus better able to transmit shock waves, an earthquake of a given magnitude typically devastates an area 100 times greater in the eastern United States than it does in the West.A) of a given magnitude typically devastates an area 100 times greater in the eastern United States than it does in the West

B )of a given magnitude will typically devastate 100 times the area if it occurs in the eastern United States instead of the West

C)will typically devastate 100 times the area in the eastern United States than one of comparable magnitude occurring in the West

D)in the eastern United States will typically devastate an area 100 times greater than will a quake of comparable magnitude occurring in the West

E)that occurs in the eastern United States will typically devastate 100 times more area than if it occurred with comparable magnitude in the West

OG's Explanation:

At issue is the accurate expression of a complex comparison. Choice D, the best answer, presents the proper form of comparison, will typically devastate an area 100 times greater than will; thus, choice D logically indicates that earthquakes in the eastern United States are 100 times more devastating than are western earthquakes.

Choices A, B, and E use it incorrectly to suggest that the

same quake strikes both the eastern and the western

United States. In choice C, 700 times the area... than is

unidiomatic.

 

Note the last line;- "In choice C, 700 times the area... than is unidiomatic. "

 

Please help ! I am just 2 weeks away from my D Day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...