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

Redeem

GMAT PILL SC

Expert replies
by hemant_rajput » Thu Jul 04, 2013 8:46 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
I'm no expert, just trying to work on my skills. If I've made any mistakes please bear with me.
Join the discussion
Source: — Sentence Correction |

by ganeshrkamath » Fri Jul 05, 2013 12:00 am
hemant_rajput 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
I would go with (E)

B and C can be eliminated as "the ratio" doesn't connect well with the end of the sentence.
D is incorrect.
E has the correct form of comparison.
Join the discussion

by hemant_rajput » Fri Jul 05, 2013 1:53 am
E is not correct answer.
I'm no expert, just trying to work on my skills. If I've made any mistakes please bear with me.
Join the discussion

by vivekchandrams » Sat Jul 06, 2013 12:21 pm
IMO A
Join the discussion

by TANMVASH » Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:44 pm
IMO A
Join the discussion

by GMATGuruNY » Sun Jul 07, 2013 2:58 am
hemant_rajput 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
In A, D and E, 1.3 times ten years ago seems to imply that a period of time -- TEN YEARS AGO -- is being multiplied by 1.3.
Eliminate A, D and E.

In B, the latest review...shows marketing officers implies that the MARKETING OFFICERS themselves are being shown.
Not the intended meaning.
Eliminate B.

The correct answer is C.

An important take-away:
If the end of the sentence is NOT underlined, always read the answer choices in conjunction with this NON-underlined portion.
Here, ten years ago (in the non-underlined portion) cannot be preceded by 1.3 times (in A, D, and E).
This one error allows us to eliminate three answer choices right off the bat.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Join the discussion

by satish_iitg » Wed Jul 17, 2013 1:27 pm
Dear Mitch,

Choices A and D could also be eliminated based on the fact that - 'compared to' refers to comparison of engineers to the ratio.

B can be eliminated because as it changes the meaning to - marketing officers being shown in the survey.

E (as you explained) 1.3 times the 10 years.

Is my analysis correct?
Join the discussion

• Page 1 of 1