BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

The latest review of pay scales in a particular company

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 418
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 12:48 pm
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:3 members

The latest review of pay scales in a particular company

by gmatdriller » Wed Nov 14, 2012 6:15 pm
The latest review of pay scales in a particular company shows that marketing officers
get paid an average of 1.8 times more salary than product development engineers, compared
to a ratio of 1.3 times ten years ago.

(A) that marketing officers get paid an average of 1.8 times more salary than product development engineers, compared to a ratio of 1.3 times
(B) marketing officers who get paid on average 1.8 times more salary than product development engineers, as compared to 1.3 times their salary, the ratio
(C) that, on average, marketing officers get paid 1.8 times the salary of product development engineers, as compared to 1.3 times their salary, the ratio
(D) marketing officers now having an average of 1.8 times the salary of a product development engineers, compared to the ratio of 1.3 times
(E) that, on average, marketing officers get paid 1.8 times the salary of product development engineers, a ratio that compares to 1.3 times

Kindly emphasize on the concrete concepts to select between [spoiler]A, C, & E[/spoiler]
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 11:55 am
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:1 members

by gmatwar13 » Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:47 pm
C i would pick... I think it is the Perfect example of meaning based question..

1) "paid an average of 1.8 times more salary"... As if looks like MO is paid an average of 1.8 times more than x PD eng. i.e awkward.. saying 1.8times of PD eng salary is calculated and then its average ais given to MO. But rather the meaning should be "on average,marketing officers get paid 1.8 times the salary of product development engineers" average of what marketing officers are paid is 1.8 times the salary of PDE...
So A, B and D out

2) In E.. "a ratio that compares to 1.3 times ten years ago"... 1.3 times what.. when you say 2 times it has to specify the quantity next to it to say 2 times of what... So E is out

Left with C.

I hope it helps..
Top
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:00 am

by nanishora » Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:58 pm
gmatdriller wrote:The latest review of pay scales in a particular company shows that marketing officers
get paid an average of 1.8 times more salary than product development engineers, compared
to a ratio of 1.3 times ten years ago.

(A) that marketing officers get paid an average of 1.8 times more salary than product development engineers, compared to a ratio of 1.3 times
(B) marketing officers who get paid on average 1.8 times more salary than product development engineers, as compared to 1.3 times their salary, the ratio
(C) that, on average, marketing officers get paid 1.8 times the salary of product development engineers, as compared to 1.3 times their salary, the ratio
(D) marketing officers now having an average of 1.8 times the salary of a product development engineers, compared to the ratio of 1.3 times
(E) that, on average, marketing officers get paid 1.8 times the salary of product development engineers, a ratio that compares to 1.3 times

Kindly emphasize on the concrete concepts to select between [spoiler]A, C, & E[/spoiler]
IMO, answer should be A. here is my reasoning. The original sentence says that they get paid more than 1.8 times not 1.8 times. So I think C,D,E should be eliminated since they are distorting the meaning of the sentence.
Among A and B, I consider B wordier. SO I will stick with A.

Can you please provide OA for the question?
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Thanked: 5 times

by naveenchandra kv » Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:38 am
IMO A is the correct answer.

The latest review shows-- requires "that".. So eliminate B and D.

In C--the ratio times-- in the end of the sentence is nonsensical.. Eliminate C.

In E-- Comparison is not clearly mentioned-- Use of " a ratio that compares to 1.3 times" is ambiguous.

Hope you got it..
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 11:55 am
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:1 members

by gmatwar13 » Thu Nov 15, 2012 8:50 am
I would suggest you guys don't assume anything wordy or nonsensical unless you can prove it. Have a proper assertion while you say something wordy or not making sense from the original sentence.
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:05 am
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members

by pritish2301 » Sun Nov 18, 2012 1:35 am
Could you please post the OA?
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:51 am
Thanked: 114 times
Followed by:12 members

by patanjali.purpose » Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:40 am
gmatdriller wrote:The latest review of pay scales in a particular company shows that marketing officers
get paid an average of 1.8 times more salary than product development engineers, compared
to a ratio of 1.3 times ten years ago.

(A) that marketing officers get paid an average of 1.8 times more salary than product development engineers, compared to a ratio of 1.3 times
(C) that, on average, marketing officers get paid 1.8 times the salary of product development engineers, as compared to 1.3 times their salary, the ratio
(E) that, on average, marketing officers get paid 1.8 times the salary of product development engineers, a ratio that compares to 1.3 times
We need to look at 1.8 TIMES MORE ...and 1.3 TIMES to get a clue. It appears sentence is comparing 1.8 and 1.3. If 1.8 TIMES MORE is actually right, then we cannot compare it with 1.3 TIMES (as one is TIMES MORE and other is just TIMES). Therefore, IMO A and B are INCORRECT.

IMO C
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 418
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 12:48 pm
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:3 members

by gmatdriller » Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:25 am
OA is C as rightly explained by gmatwar and
patanjali
Top
Post new topic Locked
• Page 1 of 1