Sentence Correction

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
B. that, on average, CEO's now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, a ratio that compares to 42 times
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
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
E. CEO's now earning an average of 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, compared to the ratio of 42 times

OA IS C

Source and explanation please ?

I wonder, like you do, mirantdon, about the source of this one, if only because there shouldn't be an apostrophe in "CEO's" (that makes CEO possessive). So this doesn't appear to be authentic...

While it's here, though, there are still a few things we can learn from it, though. If you look at the differences between the sentences to find good Decision Points, the major differences I see are:

1) The first difference is whether you'd put "on average" in commas as a modifier before "CEOs" (in B and C) or where it is in the original. Seeing that difference shows me a slight meaning difference; do CEOs really earn "an average of 419 times..."? Or is it that, on average, the difference in pay is 419 times? At least in direct comparison, the meaning in B and C seems more logical...

2) At the ends of each answer choice we have a huge difference; we can use either "a ratio of 42 times in 1980" or "...42 times their pay, the ratio in 1980". Again, I think the direct comparison helps quite a bit - the meaning in A, B, and E is flawed as to appropriately express a ratio relationship you have to have a basis point: 42 times WHAT?

For example, if I said "my salary has increased 42 times since 2005", that just means that it's gone up on 42 separate occasions. But I don't know the end result - it could have gone up a penny each time and not be all that impressive today. To say that I'm making a fortune right now (sadly, I'm not) I'd have to say "my salary has increased to 42 times what it was in 2005". To effectively make this mathematical relationship we have to have the 42 times "a number", and only C and D effectively do that.

3) Between C and D...the "who" in D sets up a modifier so that "...who now earn on average 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers" becomes a description of CEOs. The problem there? Now "CEOs" is a subject without a verb. The word "earn" is part of a modifier, and so choice D, without a verb for its subject, is a sentence fragment and therefore incorrect.

I agree that C is best but why in C, "as compared" can modify a noun.?

I think "as compared" is a elliptical subordinate clause which must modify a main clause.

Pls, explain

"in contrast to" is used to connect a noun with another noun
in contrast to small business, big company use mass production

"as compared to" can not be used to connect a noun with another noun unless "as compared to" is a idiom. if you prove that "as compared to " is an idiom, I am wrong.

in english there is phrase " as opposed to" which is idiom which connect a noun with a noun. this idiom is explained in Oxford dictionary.

do you thing that "as compared to" is an idiom. it it is, pls show me the explanation in the dictionary.

pls, help

Thank you HUnt, I agree to your explanation.
I see no explanation of " as compared to" in Oxford dictionary, which dose not contain all words and phrases.

so, "as compared to" is similar to " as opposed to" . Both of them is used as conjuction which can connect two nouns. these idioms come into use after a long time of using that way which can be incorrect- this is not the point we concern.

Thank You Hunt