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

Question

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.

(A) that CEOs now earn an average of 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, compared to a ratio of 42 times

(B) that, on average, CEOs now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, a ratio that compares to 42 times

(C) that, on average, CEOs now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, as compared to 42 times their pay, the ratio

(D) CEOs who now earn on average 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, as compared to 42 times their pay, the ratio

(E) CEOs now earning an average of 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, compared to the ratio of 42 times

egmat · Accepted Answer

Hi,
I received a Pm to respond to this one.

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 1990.

According to a recent review, CEOs now earn an average of 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers. The ratio of the same was 42:1 in 1990.

Now let’s look at error of this sentence:
1. Usage of “a ratio of” is incorrect here. It’s ambiguous what does it refer to. Also, it breaks the parallelism between “419 times” and “42 times”. Only the expression “42 times” would have been enough to present the correct comparison.

PoE:

a. that CEOs now earn an average of 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, compared to a ratio of 42 times: Incorrect for the reason stated above.

b. that, on average, CEOs now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, a ratio that compares to 42 times: Incorrect. This choice suggests the ratio compares to 42 times, that is in 42 different times in 1990. This is illogical comparison.

c. that, on average, CEOs now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, as compared to 42 times their pay, the ratio: Correct. The parallelism is correctly maintained. “a ratio” correctly modifies “ “42 times their pay”.

d. CEOs who now earn on average 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, as compared to 42 times their pay, the ratio: Incorrect. Per this choice, recent reviews indicate “CEOs”.

e. CEOs now earning an average of 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, compared to the ratio of 42 times: Incorrect.
1. Repeats the same error as in choice A.
2. Repeats the same error as in choice D.

Hope this helps.

Thanks.
Shraddha

Thanks. Shraddha

sayantanc2k · Answer

A. Wrong - 2 errors.
error 1. The past participle modifier "compared to a ratio ....." wrongly refers to "workers". 
error 2. When using multiples such as "x times", "double" etc. using comparative such as "more","less" etc is wrong. The comparatives are used for mathematical operators sum and difference.
Correct: I am 5 meters taller than he is. (difference is 5 meters, comparative "taller" is OK)
Correct: My height is double / 3 times his height. (multiplier is 2 / 3, no comparative)
Wrong: My height is 3 times more than his height. (for multiplier, cannot use comparative "more")

B. Wrong.
The active voice usage "the ratio that compares to.." is wrong. The ratio does not compare - the ratio IS compared (passive).

C. Correct.
Correct usage of comparison"as compared to". 
The modifier "that ratio" correctly refers to "42 times".

D. Wrong.
error 2 of option A above.

E. Wrong.
error 1 of option A above.

lexis · Answer

We are comparing between ratio nowadays and ratio in 1980. Ok, INDICATES need THAT followed. => Rule out D, E.

A:ratio of  42 times in 1980.  , B: 42 times ("of" what) in 1980. ==> Eliminate A, B.
C: AS  compared to  42 times their pay ,  the ratio in 1980. 
C containS AS. C has only problem with THEIR but can be ACCEPTABLE and C is also the best choice among 5 choices.

fall2009 · Answer

Between A and B, I would go with A.
Actually I prefer to repeat " a ratio" in B than just say "compared to 42 times" in A, but the reason I didn't choose B is because B uses "compares" rather than "compared", I think the passive voice "the ratio is compared" is better than the active voice "the ratio compares" in this case.

GMATPill · Answer

(E) does not make sense because the sentence leaves you hanging. "A recent review of pay scales indicates CEOs now earning , compared to the ratio in 1980..." - this is not correct. You could say "A recent review of pay scales indicates CEOs now earn .." - that's OK. But (E) uses "earning" instead of simply "earn" - so (E) is no good. You can see the explanation for this question here: https://www.gmatpill.com/gmat-practice-t ... question/7

PiyushK · Answer

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.
Three errors:
Meaning : CEO's earn what - an average of something or money - an average of 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers: nonsensical. {YES/NO}
Idiom : X times more pay than Y , should be X times of Y {YES/NO}
Modifier : blue-collar workers, compared to blah blah... compared is a ed-modifier modifying workers: wrong {YES/NO}

that, on average, CEO's now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, a ratio that compares to 42 times.
Meaning : a ratio that compares to 42 times; ratio 419:1 compares to 42:1 of 1980 .... compares what ? incomplete meaning. {YES/NO}

that, on average, CEO's now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, as compared to 42 times their pay, the ratio.
Modifier : the pay of blue-collar workers, as compared .... the pay of xx, as compared to workers pay compared is modifying the pay and this modification is acceptable thus here it is fine.
Absolute phrase : The ratio in 1980 someway modifies the proceeding modifier's object 42:1 in 1980.
Correct sentence.

CEO's who now earn on average of 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, as compared to 42 times their pay, the ratio.
Meaning : A recent review of pay scales indicates NOUN CEO's : wrong
Meaning : CEO's who earn , limiting the scope of meaning to CEO's who earn earn blah blah... original meaning covers all CEO's in GENERAL. {YES/NO}
Meaning : who now earn on average of something or money - an average of 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers: nonsensical. {YES/NO}
Idiom : X times more pay than Y , should be X times of Y {YES/NO}
Modifier : than blue-collar workers, compared to blah blah... compared is a ed-modifier modifying workers: wrong {YES/NO}

CEO's now (modifier) earning an average of 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, compared to the ratio of 42 times
Meaning : A recent review of pay scales indicates NOUN CEO's : wrong
Meaning : earning an average of something or money - an average of 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers: nonsensical. {YES/NO}
Idiom : X times more pay than Y , should be X times of Y {YES/NO}
Modifier: the pay ..., compared (OK) but comparison is not right 419 times the pay != the ratio of 42 times

tringuyenminh293 · Answer

Anyone chose answer E for this question. IMO the 1st phrase is clearly written "CEO's earning an average of 419 times the pay of blue collar workers" + the 2nd phrase functioned rightly "compared to the ratio of specific number"

I could not even detect the grammatical error in answer E, can anyone help me on this?

I could not even detect the grammatical error in answer E, can anyone help me on this?

DmitryFarber · Answer

C says the exact same thing as B about the relationship between current CEO and employee pay, so there's no reason to pick one over the other on that basis. However, B goes on to say that this ratio "compares to 42 times in 1980." This isn't clear at all. What does it mean that the ratio compares to something? What are the 42 times?

C clears this up by making a comparison between the current ratio (419:1) and the 1980 ratio (42:1). There's no pronoun ambiguity, since CEO's could never have earned 42 times their own pay!

C clears this up by making a comparison between the current ratio (419:1) and the 1980 ratio (42:1). There's no pronoun ambiguity, since CEO's could never have earned 42 times their own pay!

zoezhuyan · Answer

Dear  mikemcgarry ,  GMATNinja ,  sayantanc2k

this question has been discussed many times, but I still need your help to clarify "    '   s", although it is not the key approach, it does confuse me a lot , therefore I wasted a lot of time to check the construction of the answer choice.
at first I thought "earn" is verb in the clause, but later, I don't think so. i have no idea that "    '   s" is possessive or abbreviation of " is "
C version:
that, on average, CEO’s now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, as compared to 42 times their pay, the ratio
if "    '   s" is possessive, then i think "earn" is noun, so i can't find the verb, 
If "    '   s" is abbreviation of " is", then choice C is illogical, because CEO cannot be earn, 
If "earn" is a verb, then why is "CEO   '   s" , not "CEO  s  "

because I sunk into this confusion, i waste a lot of time.

Genuinely need your help.
Thanks in advance
Have a nice day.

anairamitch1804 · Answer

A, B, and E: 42 times in 1980 
“42 times WHAT VALUE in 1980”? 
Eliminate A, B and E. 
D: “A recent review indicates CEO's” 
Not the intended meaning: the review doesn't indicate the CEO'S THEMSELVES. 
Rather, the review indicates an ACTION, as conveyed by the OA: 
“that, on average, CEO’s now EARN 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers”. 
Eliminate D.

The correct answer is C.
“as compared to” conveys essentially the same meaning as “in contrast to”. 
The meaning conveyed by the OA is as follows: 
“419 times the pay of blue-collar workers is IN CONTRAST TO 42 times their pay, the ratio in 1980.”

anje29 · Answer

Reached answer using POE .

A. that CEO's now earn an average of 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers,  compared to a ratio of 42 times 
 The highlighted phrase is constructed wrongly here. 42 times what ?

B. that, on average, CEO's now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers,  a ratio that compares to 42 times. 
Same as in A

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
 modifier used here is correct.

D. CEo's who now earn on average 419 time more pay than blue-collar workers, as compared to 42 times their pay, the ratio
'that' is required

E. CEO's now earning an average of 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers,  compared to the ratio of 42 times 
'that' is required. Modifier is wrong.

daagh · Answer

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 1990.

A. that CEO's now earn an average of 419 times more pay than blue- collar workers, compared to a ratio of 42 times--  comparing pay with blue collar workers and with a ratio of 42 times.

b. that, on average, CEO's now earns 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, a ratio that compares to 42 times.---  compared to 42 times may mean compared to 42 occasions.

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 ---  now 419 times the pay is compared to 42 times the pay; see the proper comparison. ---- correct choice

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 --  This is a reported speech; 'that ' is missing.

e. CEO's now earning an average of 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, compared to the ratio of 42 times---  same error as in D

Pointless to break one's head whether 419 times more pay means 420 times as much pay and so on.

egmat · Answer

Hello tringuyenminh293 , I will be glad to help you out with one.

Following is the sentence with Choice E: A recent review of pay scales indicates CEO’s now earning an average of 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, compared to the ratio of 42 times in 1980 . Per this choice, a recent review indicates CEO's. This is not what the original sentence says. The original sentence intends to say that the review indicates something about the earnings of the CEO's. Absence of that after indicates creates this anomaly in meaning. So Choice E stands incorrect. Hope this helps.

Thanks. Shraddha

MagooshExpert · Answer

' Hi zoezhuyan ! You are absolutely correct here -- the apostrophe is incorrect in all these cases. All of the answer choices should say "CEOs", not "CEO's". We only use an apostrophe when we're implying possessive, or "is". Neither of those are the case here. So this is a mistake in the question. Good catch! Hope that helps

-Carolyn

TommyWallach · Answer

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
PROBLEM: It's not "a ratio of 42 times" (which doesn't mean anything). Also, "419 times more pay" is awkward.

B. that, on average, CEO’s now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, a ratio that compares to 42 times
PROBLEM: 42 times in 1980? that doesn't make any sense...

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
ANSWER: It's not pretty, but there are no actual mistakes here ("their" correctly refers to "workers", and "the ratio..." is correctly modifying "42 times their pay", which is a ratio. This is called an appositive modifier, when a noun modifies a noun.

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
PROBLEM: You need "that" after "indicate".

E. CEO’s now earning an average of 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, compared to the ratio of 42 times
PROBLEM: You need "that". This sentence also isn't complete, and the comparison is wrong.

Hope that helps!

-t

prav04 · Answer

Can't their in the third option refer back to both CEO's and blue-collar workers?

EducationAisle · Answer

Yes  prav04 , but pronoun  ambiguity  should  never  be the sole reason to  eliminate  an answer choice.

p.s. Our book    EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana    discusses  Pronoun ambiguity , its application and examples in significant detail. If you or someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.

esonrev · Answer

how do we gain comfort with the "their" in choice C?

EducationAisle · Answer

Well, one could argue that  their  is technically  ambiguous , for  their  can refer to  pay scales  or to  blue-collar workers .

From the context however, it is very clear that  their  should only refer to  blue-collar workers .

It needs to be noted that  pronoun ambiguity  should generally  not  be a reason to eliminate an answer choice.

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards