Sentence Correction

Hi,

Can someone explain the difference between equivalent of vs. equivalent to by giving an example? Thanks!

OG example:

According to a study by Carnegie Foundation, companies in the U.S. are providing job training and general education for nearly eight million people, about equivalent of those enrolled in nation's four-year colleges and universities (wrong choice)

VS.

as many as are enrolled in (right choice)

OG explanation for wrong choice: The equivalent is the wrong term for the intended comparison; it should be made clear that the comparison concerns the numbers of people in both groups and not some broader concept.

Redhorsep wrote:Hi,

Can someone explain the difference between equivalent of vs. equivalent to by giving an example? Thanks!

OG example:

According to a study by Carnegie Foundation, companies in the U.S. are providing job training and general education for nearly eight million people, about equivalent of those enrolled in nation's four-year colleges and universities (wrong choice)

VS.

as many as are enrolled in (right choice)

OG explanation for wrong choice: The equivalent is the wrong term for the intended comparison; it should be made clear that the comparison concerns the numbers of people in both groups and not some broader concept.

Normally "the" would precede "equivalent of", as in the opening paragraph of this article: https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40320662/ns ... thFuFY9V8E

On the otherhand, "equivalent to" is a standalone phrase, such as in "The nutritional value of tap water is equivalent to that of distilled water."

So you say "... is the equivalent of ..."

And you say "... is equivalent to ..."

Redhorsep wrote:Hi,

Can someone explain the difference between equivalent of vs. equivalent to by giving an example? Thanks!

OG example:

According to a study by Carnegie Foundation, companies in the U.S. are providing job training and general education for nearly eight million people, about equivalent of those enrolled in nation's four-year colleges and universities (wrong choice)

VS.

as many as are enrolled in (right choice)

OG explanation for wrong choice: The equivalent is the wrong term for the intended comparison; it should be made clear that the comparison concerns the numbers of people in both groups and not some broader concept.

EQUIVALENT means equal in VALUE, function, or meaning. EQUIVALENT is inappropriate here: the intended meaning is not that the eight million people are EQUAL IN VALUE to those enrolled in the nation's four-year colleges and universities.

Equivalent to = ADJECTIVE + PREPOSITION: Critics claim that the new law is EQUIVALENT TO censorship.
Equivalent of = NOUN + PREPOSITION: One grapefruit is the nutritional EQUIVALENT OF two lemons.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

Redhorsep wrote:Hi,

Can someone explain the difference between equivalent of vs. equivalent to by giving an example? Thanks!

OG example:

According to a study by Carnegie Foundation, companies in the U.S. are providing job training and general education for nearly eight million people, about equivalent of those enrolled in nation's four-year colleges and universities (wrong choice)

VS.

as many as are enrolled in (right choice)

OG explanation for wrong choice: The equivalent is the wrong term for the intended comparison; it should be made clear that the comparison concerns the numbers of people in both groups and not some broader concept.

EQUIVALENT means equal in VALUE, function, or meaning. EQUIVALENT is inappropriate here: the intended meaning is not that the eight million people are EQUAL IN VALUE to those enrolled in the nation's four-year colleges and universities.

Equivalent to = ADJECTIVE + PREPOSITION: Critics claim that the new law is EQUIVALENT TO censorship.
Equivalent of = NOUN + PREPOSITION: One grapefruit is the nutritional EQUIVALENT OF two lemons.

Thanks Mitch! I have another question regarding the same problem but concerning another issue: pronoun antecedent.

The right choice in this problem is: as many as are enrolled in. And GMAT claims that this implies that "people are compared with people, the understood subject of are enrolled".

It did a similar thing with another problem, in which GMAT also suggests that it's ok to infer a pronoun without explicitly mentioning. For example, in OG 12 # 91:

Nobody knows exactly how many languages there are in the world, partly because of teh difficulty of distinguishing between a language and the sublanguages or dialects within it, but those who have tried to count typically have found about five thousand. (correct original)

So in the above example, GMAT is assuming it is counting languages without specfically stating so.

I know paralllel structure might help linking the pronoun back to the antecedent, but I'm still not comfortable with GMAT making such assumption, what's your take on this issue?

Thanks again!

GMATGuruNY wrote: EQUIVALENT means equal in VALUE, function, or meaning. EQUIVALENT is inappropriate here: the intended meaning is not that the eight million people are EQUAL IN VALUE to those enrolled in the nation's four-year colleges and universities.

What exactly you mean by EQUAL IN VALUE ? (I think, you're NOT referring to NUMBERS, then what else ?)

GMATGuruNY wrote: Equivalent to = ADJECTIVE + PREPOSITION: Critics claim that the new law is EQUIVALENT TO censorship.

So, EQUIVALENT is used here to represent function, or meaning. Right ?

GMATGuruNY wrote: Equivalent of = NOUN + PREPOSITION: One grapefruit is the nutritional EQUIVALENT OF two lemons.

"nutritional EQUIVALENT OF two lemons" implies nutritional VALUE OF two lemons. So, EQUIVALENT is used here to represent VALUE. Right ?

And are the uses of EQUIVALENT either as an ADJECTIVE or a NOUN dependent on the use of PREPOSITION associated with EQUIVALENT ? Or it is solely dependent on the CONTEXT/MEANING of the SC at hand ?

RBBmba@2014 wrote:What exactly you mean by EQUAL IN VALUE ? (I think, you're NOT referring to NUMBERS, then what else ?)

The type of value must be gleaned from context.
Nutritionally, one mango is equivalent to three apples.
Here, the NUTRITIONAL VALUE of one mango is compared to the NUTRITIONAL VALUE of three apples.

GMATGuruNY wrote:Critics claim that the new law is EQUIVALENT TO censorship.

So, EQUIVALENT is used here to represent function, or meaning. Right ?

Correct.
The implication is that the new law and censorship are of equal value with regard to FUNCTION.
Since censorship is the stifling of free expression, the conveyed meaning is that the new law and censorship stifle free expression TO THE SAME DEGREE.

GMATGuruNY wrote: And are the uses of EQUIVALENT either as an ADJECTIVE or a NOUN dependent on the use of PREPOSITION associated with EQUIVALENT ??

Yes.
X is equivalent TO Y.
Here, equivalent serves as an ADJECTIVE.
X is the equivalent OF Y.
Here, equivalent serves as a NOUN.

Hi Mitch,

Thanks for the explanation. Am I correct say that " equivalent to " only use with uncountable noun/intangible times and therefore, it can only use to express equal in value, function and meaning but not number? Thanks.

Hi Mitch,

Thanks for the explanation. Am I correct say that " equivalent to " only use with uncountable noun/intangible times and therefore, it can only use to express equal in value, function and meaning but not number? Thanks.