GMAT Question:- A recent review of pay scales indicates

[thanghnvn]

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

why "earning" in E is wrong? because gerund never go with possesive? pls explain.

[thanghnvn]

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

why "earning" in E is wrong? because gerund never go with possesive? pls explain.

[tim]

When did anyone say that "earning" was wrong? Can you quote the post and identify the date of the post so I can follow up? I wasn't able to find it in the thread.

[RonPurewal]

"earning xxx" is just a modifier of "CEOs". so, if something "indicates CEOs earning xxx", then that thing must actually indicate (= name or point out) those CEOs themselves.

since that's obviously not the case here——the report points out a fact about these CEOs, not the identities of the CEOs themselves——the construction in E doesn't make sense.

[Lakshminarayan]

Hi Ron

I eliminated A and B answer choices for the following reasons please correct me if I'm wrong

1. In 'A' the comma + verb-ed modifier is incorrect. it is modifying blue-collar workers.

2. In 'B' the clause " a ratio that compares ....." looks like an appositive modifier. in the given context i think its incorrect

thanks :)

[RonPurewal]

1. In 'A' the comma + verb-ed modifier is incorrect. it is modifying blue-collar workers.

nope.
actually, 2 different kinds of "nope".

1/
you shouldn't think of "compared to/with..." in the same way as any other modifier.
it's a construction whose express purpose is to put two statistics next to each other, without stating anything explicit about the comparison.
e.g.,
This year 11 percent of workers under 25 in the city are unemployed, compared to only 7 percent just three years ago.
--> this is a correct sentence. there's no grammatical issue regarding exactly what is placed before "compared to...", as long as it's a comparable statistic.
--> note that the sentence does NOT make any explicit comparison (e.g., "...much greater than..."). it just puts the %11 and %7 statistics next to each other, and lets the reader draw his or her own conclusions.

2/
even if this were a ", __ed" modifier, it wouldn't have to modify the thing directly in front of it.
such modifiers can also work like ", __ing" modifiers, describing the subject + content of the whole clause.
e.g., Terry collapsed onto the couch, exhausted from a hard day's work.
remember, this analysis is irrelevant to the matter at hand (since "compared to..." isn't like other modifiers), but it's still something you should know.

[RonPurewal]

2. In 'B' the clause " a ratio that compares ....." looks like an appositive modifier. in the given context i think its incorrect

i don't know / can't remember this terminology.

regardless, there's nothing wrong with ", a ratio...". in fact, this exact sort of thing is used, in exactly the same way, in the correct answer!

the problem is "...that compares to...".
this phrase doesn't convey the right meaning. if we state that "X compares to Y", then we're saying that X and Y are, in some way, close to each other.
e.g., You're the only person I know whose public speaking ability compares to Elena's.
--> elena is a really good speaker. you are (almost) as good as she is.
in the sentence at hand, this is of course not the point. in fact, the point is pretty much exactly the opposite--that the CEO pay is so far away from the blue-collar pay that it's just ridiculous.

[Lakshminarayan]

Thanks Ron.

cool and simple explanations. :)

[RonPurewal]

Thanks Ron.

cool and simple explanations. :)

you're welcome.

[TingP565]

I don't know what "ved" means.

"(As) compared..." is placed as close to the actual statistic as possible. The words following "419 times" NEED to be there (else the statistic would be impossible to clarify).
The correct answer is structured in essentially the same way, so you know this part isn't the problem.

Note that "a ratio of 42 times..." is a redundant construction.

well, sorry for not clarify what " ved" mean
"ved" stands for "past participle"

in choice A
is ”more pay than blue-collar workers“ serving as a modifier to modify the ”419 times“， which can make “compared to ” modify the whole part of “ 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers”

Hi, Ron/Instructors,
I have the same question about the use of past participle, doesn't it supposed to modifier the noun next to it?
in choice a, "compared" followed "workers", why it does not modifier workers?
is it because of the structure "X, compared Y"?
btw, pls clarify the use of past participle.
thanks first

well, I have found the answer in the earlier post. Sorry to ask the similar question

[RonPurewal]

quoting what i wrote earlier on this page:

1/
you shouldn't think of "compared to/with..." in the same way as any other modifier.
it's a construction whose express purpose is to put two statistics next to each other, without stating anything explicit about the comparison.
e.g.,
This year 11 percent of workers under 25 in the city are unemployed, compared to only 7 percent just three years ago.
--> this is a correct sentence. there's no grammatical issue regarding exactly what is placed before "compared to...", as long as it's a comparable statistic.
--> note that the sentence does NOT make any explicit comparison (e.g., "...much greater than..."). it just puts the %11 and %7 statistics next to each other, and lets the reader draw his or her own conclusions.

^^ that. the pink thing. that's the answer (or, perhaps, non-answer) to your question.

[TingP565]

thanks, Ron!

[RonPurewal]

sure.

[neetub951]

I am wondering whether "an average" in A is wrong?

419 times more pay than blue caller workers
so if pay of all blue caller worker is b then 420b/no of blue worker = CEO salary...is that what it means? This is absurd.

[tim]

That is indeed what it means. Your comment on the absurdity of the situation is more of a political observation. It may be absurd, but those numbers are actually realistic in today's world.