In california today

[jlucero]

Hi experts,

in the wrong options, are there any problems about the comparison?

Such as in (A), is the subject Hispanic under the age of eighteen compared with a decade ago, which is time.

Please correct me if I am wrong

Thanks

There are definitely some misused comparisons in this example, but not the one that you point out. "compared with a decade ago" logically points to "today" at the beginning of the sentence. However, the same sentence says: "Hispanics under the age of eighteen account for more than 43 percent" 43% of what? All people in California? All people under 18? All Hispanics?

[xiaonvhai123]

Hi, experts:

Learning from a OG problem:
123.She was less successful after she had emigrated to New York compared to her native Germany,

....I will not post the whole question I think you don't like it here..

From the above question, I understand that we should not use "compare" together with " more,less,better...less than...more than...."- such kinds of words..

But in this problem, four of the options use "more than" together with "compare", even the correct option is also doing so...

Would you pls confirm whether "compare" shouldn't go with "more than" is still a valid split?

[jnelson0612]

Hi, experts:

Learning from a OG problem:
123.She was less successful after she had emigrated to New York compared to her native Germany,

....I will not post the whole question I think you don't like it here..

From the above question, I understand that we should not use "compare" together with " more,less,better...less than...more than...."- such kinds of words..

But in this problem, four of the options use "more than" together with "compare", even the correct option is also doing so...

Would you pls confirm whether "compare" shouldn't go with "more than" is still a valid split?

Hello! We actually have a thread dealing with this exact problem as well as your question. Please see this thread and read Ron's post: gmat-prep-she-was-less-successful-after-t9832.html

[jyothi h]

Consolidating all the errors pointed out in all the previous posts , as per my understanding , so I can get it verified from any of the instructors. Appreciate, if any of the instructor can confirm on it or revert on any of the errors I failed to see in the answer choices.

[quote="BG"]In California today, Hispanics under the age of eighteen account for more than 43%, compared with a decade ago, when it was about 35%.
A In California today, Hispanics under the age of eighteen account for more than 43%, compared with a decade ago, when it was about 35%.
[i]should be "more than 45% of something". Also "IT" does not have a valid antecedent.
I believe "compared with" is correctly comparing "today" with "decade ago" ?[/i]

B.Of the Californians under the age of eighteen, today more than 43% of them are Hispanic, compared with a decade ago, when it was about 35%.
"43% of them" here is incorrect, since "43% of the Californians" is already specified.
same issue with "IT" as in A.

C.Today, more than 43% of Californians under the age of eighteen are Hispanic, compared with about 35% decade ago.
Correct

D.Today, compared to a decade ago, Californians who are Hispanics under the age of eighteen account for more than 43%, whereas it was about 35%.
Same issues as in A.
Also , "whereas it was about 35%" sounds awkward . I don't know the reason thought. I guess it is not clear that 35% was a decade ago - compared to decade ago is placed far off from that ?

E. Today, Hispanics under the age of eighteen in California account for more than 43%, unlike a decade ago, when it was about 35%.
Same issue as with A

quote]

[RonPurewal]

jyothi -- all looks good, except for this part:

[i]I believe "compared with" is correctly comparing "today" with "decade ago" ?[/i]

no. you're not comparing the timeframes ("today" and a "decade ago") -- you're comparing the percentages of californians with hispanic blood between those two timeframes.

so, for that kind of comparison to work, it should be written as something like this:
43% of the xxxxx are hispanic, compared to 35% a decade ago.

[jyothi h]

jyothi -- all looks good, except for this part:

[i]I believe "compared with" is correctly comparing "today" with "decade ago" ?[/i]

no. you're not comparing the timeframes ("today" and a "decade ago") -- you're comparing the percentages of californians with hispanic blood between those two timeframes.

so, for that kind of comparison to work, it should be written as something like this:
43% of the xxxxx are hispanic, compared to 35% a decade ago.

Oh OK . Thanks for the clarification . Appreciate it !

Regards,
Jyothi

[tim]

:)

[Suapplle]

Hi,Ron,"compare to/with" modify the statistics in the preceding clause,so does it must be followed directly by a statistics like in the correct choice?

In choice D,"compared to a decade ago" modify "today" or "Californians who are Hispanics ...."?

please clarify,thanks!

[RonPurewal]

Hi,Ron,"compare to/with" modify the statistics in the preceding clause,so does it must be followed directly by a statistics like in the correct choice?

Ideally yes. It's extremely unlikely that you'd see anything else.

If that extremely unlikely event happens, then just take the choice that puts them closest to each other.

In choice D,"compared to a decade ago" modify "today" or "Californians who are Hispanics ...."?

please clarify,thanks!

It's wrong either way -- the sentence isn't comparing time periods; it's meant to compare statistics -- so there's no sense in probing this issue any further.

(If you can't immediately tell what is being compared, that's a pretty good sign that you're looking at a wrong answer.)

[thanghnvn]

C.Today, more than 43% of Californians under the age of eighteen are Hispanic, compared with about 35%, a decade ago.

I remember Ron said that we should learn from the oa in the og/gmatprep.

in this oa, "compared with... ago" is purely adjectival which refers to "more than 43 %...)

but in this pattern, the adjectival is very far from the noun modified.

so, the rule that the modifier should touch the noun modified is a preference not an absolute rule.

is that right?

[RonPurewal]

Basically, you should just know two things about "compared to/with".

1/
It is the comparison. I.e., it should never be combined with another comparison word (more, less, greater, etc.)

2/
It should be followed immediately by the second statistic ("compared to 35%").

The first statistic can be expressed in just about any way that is clear.

[momo32]

there is no real problem with "unlike" in e, as that indicates a valid comparison in that today is unlike a decade ago. placement in d is not the issue, because the phrase itself is invalid. "compared to" needs an actual comparison, i.e. something being more/better/etc. than something else. we don't have that sort of language here..

Dear Tim，

You mean that "compared with" must be used to compare something is better or worse. We cannot use it to compare time

Its right?

THX

[RonPurewal]

You mean that "compared with" must be used to compare something is better or worse.

nope.

if you have "better" or "worse" (or any "__er" comparison——bigger, faster, stronger, etc.), then "compared to/with" is redundant.

in statistical observations (such as the one in this sentence), the point of "compared to/with" is simply to place two statistics side by side, letting the reader draw his/her own conclusions.
as noted above, there should not be another comparison word. redundancy makes me cry. (it makes me cry tears...)

e.g.,
over 70% of students at college x receive financial aid, compared to just 26% of students at college y.

[RonPurewal]

also—
note that, in this kind of sentence, "compared to/with" must be followed DIRECTLY by one of the two statistics involved in the comparison.
e.g., in the example above, "just %26" comes right after "compared to".

[RonPurewal]

finally (in reference to comments above):
yes, "unlike" in choice E is wrong.

"unlike" must be followed by a noun.
"a decade ago" is not a noun. bad.

we could write something like Unlike the previous decade, which was characterized by wartime austerity, the 1920's were infamous for loose morals and conspicuous consumption.
this type of construction wouldn't work in this problem, though; unlike the sentence i just wrote, the problem is not intended to compare the previous decade itself with anything. (clearly, it's meant to compare demographic percentages.)