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

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

The latest review of pay scales in a particular company

Expert replies
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]
Join the discussion
Source: — Sentence Correction |

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..
Join the discussion

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?
Join the discussion

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..
Join the discussion

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.
Join the discussion

by pritish2301 » Sun Nov 18, 2012 1:35 am
Could you please post the OA?
Join the discussion

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
Join the discussion

by gmatdriller » Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:25 am
OA is C as rightly explained by gmatwar and
patanjali
Join the discussion

• Page 1 of 1