tirumalai Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ps231 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 for paralellism, i think the answer choices must be either B or C. But i cannot understand why B is better than C.. I think C should be the correct answer.. Plz. explain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorpion.ks Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeet_1975 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Thank you Scorpian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charry_008 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 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. Also, I am not sure whether "a ratio that compares to 42 times in 1980" is a correct usage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
800Bob Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 In GMATPrep the credited response to this SC is C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorpion.ks Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 OA is C and as correctly pointed by Bob, this is gmatprep question. http://www.www.urch.com/forums/gmat-sentence-correction/51879-gmatprep-ceos-salary.html Any good explanation from gurus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
800Bob Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 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". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yogesh_kkk Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 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 missingI will go with b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yogesh_kkk Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
800Bob Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehard800 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 cudn get ...........pl correct urself:hmm: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mchammer Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 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" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
800Bob Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 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"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charry_008 Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
800Bob Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borntorun Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 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 .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeet_1975 Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Still I could not understand please elaborate BOB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shilpishrestha Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 I also haven't understood :( why C is best? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
800Bob Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbawannabe Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anson800 Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Thanks BOB,finally i understood this SC. Still that last part...,THe ratio..i am not clear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanjeev_sharma Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Nice explaination BoB Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen09 Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen09 Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 Can some help me out with the above? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.