A recent review of pay scales indicates that CEO's now earn an average

In option C
compared to 42 times their pay - whom does their refer to?
It can either be CEOs or blue collar workers!
Does this not create pronoun antecedent ambiguity?
Please correct me.

Thanks in advance!

Hello Sravan95,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, if we take "their" to refer to "CEOs", the meaning conveyed is that in 1980, CEOs earned 42 times their own pay; as this meaning is clearly illogical, pronoun ambiguity does not apply here.

To understand the concept of "Exception to Pronoun Ambiguity" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

regarding choice a
it should be " CEO's earn 419 times more than blue worker DO" . this is verb comparison.
or
"CEO's earn 419 times more pay than the pay of blue worker". this is noun comparison.

second error

"compared to a ratio of 42 times in 1980" is unclear meaning. we dont know what the ratio of 42 time is. we can insert "the" or "that" to make meaning clear.

"compared to THE/THAT ratio of 42 times in 1980". this if fine. "the ratio" means the similar ratio in preceding clause.

in choice c, " as compared to 42 times their pay" is clear meaning and comparison is clear.

UNCLEAR MEANING IS A HARD ERROR ON GMAT . illogical meaning is a more easy error

"as compared to" work as preposition which connect "419 times the pay " and "42 times their pay". "as compared to" is not a participle phrase, working as verb and adjective.

I think there is a minor error in the question. It has got to be CEOs and not CEO's. Editing the question will save time for people solving it later.

Hi I also chose C but my line of reasoning is different

A: that CEOs now earn an average of 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, compared to a ratio of 42 times: Parallelism
B: that, on average, CEOs now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, a ratio that compares to 42 times---42 times of what
C: correct
D & E meaning error A recent review of pay scales indicates CEOs

Are these reasons correct?

A recent review of pay scales indicates that CEOs now earn an average of 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, compared to a ratio of 42 times in 1980.

Option Elimination -
Apologies if I hurt anyone's feelings by using numbers here for the sake of clarity. Let's assume the blue-collar work salary is $10, so the CEO salary is how much? $4190. Let's unpack the options, keeping this in mind while we still have our sentence correction hat on.

(A) that CEOs now earn an average of 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, compared to a ratio of 42 times - CEOs now earn $4190 compared to 42 times? 42 times what? 42 times nothing. That's an issue we are comparing a salary with a ratio. Now let's put on SC hat. "compared" is an "ed" verbal that modifies nouns. What is the nearest noun? Workers. Does it make sense? No. Moreover, when we use X times or double or triple, we don't use more/less. Why? Because it doesn't make sense. You have twice the money I have is ok, but saying You have twice more the money I have is not ok. I am okay with you having more money than me But please don't spoil the language. We love it.

(B) that, on average, CEOs now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, a ratio that compares to 42 times - CEOs now earn $4190, a ratio (what? Is $4190 a ratio? No) "that" refers to ratio, so if we simplify the sentence "CEOs now earn $4190, a ratio compared to 42 times in 1980? 42 times what in 1980? Isn't it ridiculous?

(C) that, on average, CEOs now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, as compared to 42 times their pay, the ratio - CEOs now earn $4190, as compared to $420 (42 times their pay. Whose pay? CEOs. No, they can't earn 42 times their pay. It refers to workers. So, 42 times workers' pay. What is workers pay? $10) in 1980. So, for clarity, here is how it looks: "CEOs now earn $4190, as compared to $420 in 1980." It effectively compares the earnings of CEOs in the present to their earnings in 1980. Again, I am sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings by dragging numbers into English. Now, if we put on our SC hat. "as" introduces adverbial here, modifying the verb "earn," and that makes perfect sense.

Let's add a bit of masala here. Could we correct option B by adding "their pay" after 42 times? If we say, "CEOs now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, a ratio that compares to 42 times their pay in 1980? Let's unpack this: CEOs now earn $4190, a ratio compared to $420 in 1980. Does it make sense? No. Say what C says. CEOs now earn $4190, as compared to $420 in 1980

(D) CEOs who now earn on average 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, as compared to 42 times their pay, the ratio - A recent review of pay scales indicates CEOs? No.

(E) CEOs now earning an average of 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, compared to the ratio of 42 times - A recent review of pay scales indicates CEOs now earning an average of $4190, compared to the ratio of 42 times. First, it should be "CEOs now earn," and comparing $4190 with 42 times is wrong.