Studies of performance reports show that working in a multilingual env

Important thing to note here is that "compared to" and "compared with" are equivalent idioms from the point of view of the GMAT; either is correct. I used this split to merely confuse the test taker, as the same thing might happen in the actual test. According to some usage experts, these two idioms differ slightly in their emphasis on similarities vs. differences, but this distinction is not universally respected.

A) to those whose native language is English.

We have a comparison in the non-underlined portion of the sentence so the underlined portion should compare the same logical structures. This choice compares "managers whose colleagues speak English as a second language" with "those (managers) whose native language is English.” The managers in the sentence could also have their native language as English

B) with those whose native language is English.

This choice also compares "managers whose colleagues speak English as a second language" with "managers whose native language is English."

C) with those who are native English speakers.

Although this choice replaces “whose native language is English” with the equivalent phrase “who are native English speakers,” the choice does not fix the original comparison error. The sentence still compares “managers whose colleagues speak English as a second language" with “managers who are native English speakers.”

D) to managers whose colleagues do not.

The second group is now “managers whose colleagues do not (speak English as a second language).” Do the colleagues in this second group speak English as a native language, then? Or do they not speak English at all? The meaning is ambiguous in this choice, while the meaning in the original sentence is quite clear: we’re comparing those who speak English as a second language to those who speak English as a first language.

E) with managers whose colleagues are native English speakers. -- Correct

This choice correctly compares “managers whose colleagues speak English as a second language” with the logically parallel “managers whose colleagues are native English speakers."

E is in fact the correct choice. Meaning is more important; the comparisons in the sentence should logically and contextually compare the same things

Hope that helps,

Vercules

Dear Fame,
This is in response to your private message.

First of all, in my mind, both (D) & (E) show clear and correct parallelism, and the problem with (D) is the grave logical issue that Vercules pointed out. In my mind, Vercules has already resolved all the issues pertaining to this question, but because you asked, I will elaborate a bit.

Point #1----LOGIC always trumps GRAMMAR ---- there is no sense putting words in what would seem to be a grammatically correct order if what is said is illogical.

Point #2 --- parallelism is NOT purely mechanical --- it doesn't necessarily mean an exact plug-in verbal repeat. Parallelism operates at both the level of the word and at the level of logic. In that sense,
managers whose colleagues speak English as a second language
managers whose colleagues are native English speakers
these two, while having different wording, are precise logical parallels.

Point #3 ---- the word "NOT" can be very tricky.
In a binary category, the word "NOT" produces a precise meaning
... those who can ride a bike, compared to those who can not ....
... those who speak French, compared to those who don't ....
... those have read Moby Dick, compared to those who have not ....
For all three of those, there's a implied yes/no question that more or less exhausts the category of possibilities.

Now, by contrast ....
.... those whose favorite novel is Moby Dick, compared to ????
....those who play cello, compared to ????
Here, the nature of the comparison is a bit less clear ---- do we mean to compare all those whose favorite novel is Moby Dick with the vast majority of humanity who do not have this relationship with this one particular book? or do we mean to compare those whose favorite novel is Moby Dick with those whose favorite is some other work?
Similarly, in the second, are we really comparing all cello-players to all non-cello-players? Or are we comparing those who play the cello to those who play some other orchestral instrument?
The logic of the sentence would tell us a lot about how we had to frame the comparison, but the point is --- as soon as there are more than two possibilities, we can't just stick the word "NOT" in there and consider ourselves done.

In this question, choice (D) has .....
...has a markedly positive effect on managers whose colleagues speak English as a second language, as compared to managers whose colleagues do not.
I must say, this is a brilliantly constructed choice designed to snap all those who think about parallelism too mechanically, ignoring the underlying logic. I really like this question.
Here, category #1 = "managers whose colleagues speak English as a second language"
So the colleagues have this specific relationship with English --- they speak it as a second language.
Who would not be category #1 ----
(a) native speakers of English --- English as a "first" language
(b) folks who speak English as their third, fourth, fifth, etc. language
(c) those who do not speak a word of English
Now, logically, in the context of the sentence, do all those people have any business being lumped together? Of course not! Yes, strictly speaking, the word "NOT", indicated simply not in Category #1, would necessarily include all those people. It includes a much wider swathe of the human race than is intended by the sentence, and it's implications are utterly illogical. Once again, logic trumps grammar. This cannot be correct.

The best answer is (E) --- perfect logic, and perfect parallelism.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hey, good explanation there... Can you explain the difference in use of compare with/ compare to....???
I ruled out E because it read compared with..... Only to later find that its meaning was most unambiguous of all.

Hi Aditya,

From GMAT's point of view the usage of both will be correct. GMAT is not likely to test you based on the difference in usage of "Compared to" Vs "Compared with" because the differences between their usage are not universally excepted. So, GMAT will not test any rule which can be disputed. No official question compares these two idioms. Please do not worry about the differences between "compared to" and "compared with".

For example the question 131 in OG 12 in SC has both "compared to" and "compared with", but the choices are incorrect in other ways.

If you are curious to know the difference here it is, but this info will not be of much use for GMAT.

"Compared to" is used to express that two things are similar.

e.g. People often compare the works of Einstein to the works of Newton. --> means that both the works are similar

"Compared with" is used to express the differences.

e.g.It would have been interesting to compare the intellectual level of Einstein with that of Newton --> meaning is that it will be interesting to know the differences in intellectual level of the scientists.


I hope it clears your doubt,

Vercules

Compare to is used for LITERALLY different things
For example He compared her face to the moon!

Compared with is used for similar things
Her face looks paler compared to her mom.

Hi Souvik,

Totally agree with you. Both the ways are correct, in fact this is the reason why GMAT does not test this difference. There is no universally excepted rule on this issue. I have already written in my post above that discussion on "compared to" and "compared with" will not be of much value for GMAT.

Hope that helps,

Vercules

Posted from my mobile device

Hi All,

Another example of a situation in which logic trumps apparent parallelism.

in-his-earlier-poems-william-butler-yeats-often-used-mythic-147715.html#p1186235

Vercules

Ain't as compared with incorrect usage of idiom

Dear kanigmat011,
With all due respect, my friend, your casual question is all but unintelligible. I assume you know that "ain't" is universally considered low-class and incorrect. Given that any future employer or colleague might read what you write here, it's worthwhile striving to be as well-spoken as possible. Furthermore, when you are asking about a particular word or phase, you should put the words you are discussing in quote marks, and ideally make them a different color. Otherwise, the readers have to guess which are the words you are speaking and which are the words you are quoting" this uncertainty made it very difficult to interpret what you were asking. Here is the question I think you were attempting to ask:

Isn't "as compared with" an incorrect usage of the idiom?

The answer is: no. Both "as compared to" and "as compared with" are 100% correct, although I don't know that they always have the micro-separation in meaning that the wise souvik101990 ascribes above.

Here is a set of free GMAT idiom flashcards that covers this and many other idioms:
https://gmat.magoosh.com/flashcards/idioms

Mike

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your prompt reply.


The intended meaning of my query was that Egmat course suggests
Usage of "as/when + compared +to/with " as incorrect.
So
Isn't "as compared with" an incorrect usage of the idiom?

Answer of which you have already mentioned above.

I hope I made it clear this time
Kani

Dear Kani,
I'm happy to respond. I don't know what other companies say. All I know is what is correct and acceptable on the GMAT. I guarantee that
as compared to
as compared with
are both 100% correct. The "when compared" construction sounds awkward to me, regardless of which preposition is used. I don't know what the course said and what conditions might have been specified, but if there was a blanket statement that "as compared to/with" is always incorrect, then I must say, that is a demonstrably false statement.

My friend, you need to be an intelligent consumer of GMAT prep material. All of these companies, including mine, have advertising that say how great we are. You can't automatically assume that everything you hear from any one company is the Truth. You have to compare points-of-view and use your own critical thinking. One of the advantages of GMAT Club is that you can get the perspectives of several different experts. Look at testimonials. Look at the reviews of companies. Be a critical thinker. You can't afford to be naive or gullible, either in your GMAT preparation or in the modern business world.

If you want a reliable list of GMAT idioms, again, I would suggest the Magoosh GMAT Idiom Flashcards, which I already mentioned.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Basic split is between Compared to Vs Compared With
As per my understanding, "Compared To" is used for showing a comparison for similar things or using as an example and "compared with" is used to list down the differences/similarities side by side. So in this case, I am going with Compared With

Dear neeraj609,

I'm happy to respond. My friend, I would simply caution you not to be too attached to that distinction, "compared to" for similar things and "compared with" to highlight difference. While that may be a general pattern, I am absolutely sure that you can find official questions in which the OA departs from this pattern. I would not call this a black/white rule by any means. In fact, some people would say the more common pattern is the other way around, "to" for difference and "with" for similarity. This difference is NOT, in an of itself, a reason to reject any option in a GMAT SC question. It is a shade of gray, but one vs. the other would not be definitively wrong in any situation.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Studies of performance reports show that working in a multilingual environment has a markedly positive effect on managers whose colleagues speak English as a second language, as compared to those whose native language is English.

We need to find what is being compared --- positive effect on colleagues of managers

Studies…..has…+ve effect on managers whose colleagues speak English as a second language Vs those managers whose colleagues do not have english as a second language.

A) to those whose native language is English.
“those” means “managers”. So you read mangers whose native language.. Wrong! We are comparing colleagues’ language not manager’s

B) with those whose native language is English.
Same as A.

C) with those who are native English speakers.
Same as A.

D) to managers whose colleagues do not.
“do not” - what does it mean? Ellipsed part here is confusing.
Colleagues do not speak English at all or colleagues do not speak English as a second language. So dual meaning brings ambiguity here.

E) with managers whose colleagues are native English speakers.

whose colleagues speak English as a second language
whose colleagues are native English speakers.

These are parallel?

Yes, that is the main reason we have marked E as the answer.