"in contrast with" and "in contrast to"

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:53 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:2 members

"in contrast with" and "in contrast to"

by mmslf75 » Thu Dec 24, 2009 10:03 pm
When does one use "in contrast with" and "in contrast to"
Any set rules ??


I know the usage of "COMPARED WITH " (to like things) and "COMPARED TO" (to unlike things)

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Thu Dec 24, 2009 10:30 pm
When we say "contrast with", CONTRAST is behaving as a verb.

Example: "He likes to contrast his checkered jacket with plain pants" or "his checkered jacket contrasts with his plain pants."

But when we say "in contrast to", it is behaving as a noun.

Example: "His checkered jacket stands in contrast to his plain pants." (As you can see, in this sentence "stands" is the verb).
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto

Legendary Member
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:53 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:2 members

by mmslf75 » Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:38 am
Testluv wrote:When we say "contrast with", CONTRAST is behaving as a verb.

Example: "He likes to contrast his checkered jacket with plain pants" or "his checkered jacket contrasts with his plain pants."

But when we say "in contrast to", it is behaving as a noun.

Example: "His checkered jacket stands in contrast to his plain pants." (As you can see, in this sentence "stands" is the verb).
In contrast to environmentalists proposals to limit emissions of certain
pollutants, the administration proposed calling for mandatory restrictions of
only three such pollutants from power plants-mercury, sulfur dioxide, and
nitrogen oxides-and the plan would delay such cuts until 2010 or later.
A. administration proposed calling for mandatory restriction of
B. administration proposed a call for mandatory restrictions, including those for
C. administration, proposing mandatory restrictions on
D. administration's proposal was a call for mandatory restrictions, which include
E. administration's proposal would call for mandatory restrictions on


Some say OA is D some say OA is E

What can be the correct one ???

i marked D

E is tempting ( would usage -- is incorrect , right ?)

Legendary Member
Posts: 727
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:32 pm
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:1 members

by umaa » Fri Dec 25, 2009 12:12 pm
D changes the meaning. "restrictions" include three pollutants?? no. it should have listed out 3 kind of restrictions for D to be correct.

E is correct. it says "restrictions ON" A, B and C.
What we think, we become

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:12 pm
Location: South Korea
Thanked: 4 times

by sadullaevd » Fri Dec 25, 2009 7:44 pm
mmslf75 wrote:
Testluv wrote:When we say "contrast with", CONTRAST is behaving as a verb.

Example: "He likes to contrast his checkered jacket with plain pants" or "his checkered jacket contrasts with his plain pants."

But when we say "in contrast to", it is behaving as a noun.

Example: "His checkered jacket stands in contrast to his plain pants." (As you can see, in this sentence "stands" is the verb).
In contrast to environmentalists proposals to limit emissions of certain
pollutants, the administration proposed calling for mandatory restrictions of
only three such pollutants from power plants-mercury, sulfur dioxide, and
nitrogen oxides-and the plan would delay such cuts until 2010 or later.
A. administration proposed calling for mandatory restriction of
B. administration proposed a call for mandatory restrictions, including those for
C. administration, proposing mandatory restrictions on
D. administration's proposal was a call for mandatory restrictions, which include
E. administration's proposal would call for mandatory restrictions on


Some say OA is D some say OA is E

What can be the correct one ???

i marked D

E is tempting ( would usage -- is incorrect , right ?)
IMO E. D has problem with parallelism ( which include isn't parallel to would delay),

here's final cut:

In contrast to environmentalists proposals to limit emissions of certain
pollutants, administration's proposal would call for mandatory restrictions on
only three such pollutants from power plants-mercury, sulfur dioxide, and
nitrogen oxides-and the plan would delay such cuts until 2010 or later.

Therefore it should be E.
Stay skeptical,
Think critically,
Assume nothing.

Legendary Member
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:53 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:2 members

by mmslf75 » Fri Dec 25, 2009 8:11 pm
sadullaevd wrote:
mmslf75 wrote:
Testluv wrote:When we say "contrast with", CONTRAST is behaving as a verb.

Example: "He likes to contrast his checkered jacket with plain pants" or "his checkered jacket contrasts with his plain pants."

But when we say "in contrast to", it is behaving as a noun.

Example: "His checkered jacket stands in contrast to his plain pants." (As you can see, in this sentence "stands" is the verb).
In contrast to environmentalists proposals to limit emissions of certain
pollutants, the administration proposed calling for mandatory restrictions of
only three such pollutants from power plants-mercury, sulfur dioxide, and
nitrogen oxides-and the plan would delay such cuts until 2010 or later.
A. administration proposed calling for mandatory restriction of
B. administration proposed a call for mandatory restrictions, including those for
C. administration, proposing mandatory restrictions on
D. administration's proposal was a call for mandatory restrictions, which include
E. administration's proposal would call for mandatory restrictions on


Some say OA is D some say OA is E

What can be the correct one ???

i marked D

E is tempting ( would usage -- is incorrect , right ?)
IMO E. D has problem with parallelism ( which include isn't parallel to would delay),

here's final cut:

In contrast to environmentalists proposals to limit emissions of certain
pollutants, administration's proposal would call for mandatory restrictions on
only three such pollutants from power plants-mercury, sulfur dioxide, and
nitrogen oxides-and the plan would delay such cuts until 2010 or later.

Therefore it should be E.
Why to use WOULD here, we are NOT told that something is being said in past abt future

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3225
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 1710 times
Followed by:614 members
GMAT Score:800

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Fri Dec 25, 2009 9:55 pm
mmslf75 wrote:
In contrast to environmentalists proposals to limit emissions of certain
pollutants, the administration proposed calling for mandatory restrictions of
only three such pollutants from power plants-mercury, sulfur dioxide, and
nitrogen oxides-and the plan would delay such cuts until 2010 or later.

A. administration proposed calling for mandatory restriction of

B. administration proposed a call for mandatory restrictions, including those for

C. administration, proposing mandatory restrictions on

D. administration's proposal was a call for mandatory restrictions, which include

E. administration's proposal would call for mandatory restrictions on
When posting future SC questions, please set it up as I have above, actually underlining the underlined portion of the sentence and leaving a blank line between choices; it makes it much easier for people to address the question.

We use "would" whenever something is hypothetical, or contrary to reality. The proposal hasn't actually happened in the real world, so if the proposal were implemented it would cause the changes.

(E) is definitely correct. Using the past tense changes the meaning of the sentence; saying a proposal "was" something implies that it's no longer that thing. We can say that a "proposal is a call for restrictions" or that the "proposal would call for restrictions".

D further changes the meaning with "which include"; according to the original sentence there are only 3 restrictions, but "which include" implies that there are other restrictions as well.
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:20 am
Location: India
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:1 members

by hrishi19884 » Sat Dec 26, 2009 3:37 am
Stuart, you Rock man!
Hrishi

"As you sow, so shall you reap"

Legendary Member
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:53 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:2 members

by mmslf75 » Sat Dec 26, 2009 3:47 am
Stuart Kovinsky wrote:
mmslf75 wrote:
In contrast to environmentalists proposals to limit emissions of certain
pollutants, the administration proposed calling for mandatory restrictions of
only three such pollutants from power plants-mercury, sulfur dioxide, and
nitrogen oxides-and the plan would delay such cuts until 2010 or later.

A. administration proposed calling for mandatory restriction of

B. administration proposed a call for mandatory restrictions, including those for

C. administration, proposing mandatory restrictions on

D. administration's proposal was a call for mandatory restrictions, which include

E. administration's proposal would call for mandatory restrictions on
When posting future SC questions, please set it up as I have above, actually underlining the underlined portion of the sentence and leaving a blank line between choices; it makes it much easier for people to address the question.

We use "would" whenever something is hypothetical, or contrary to reality. The proposal hasn't actually happened in the real world, so if the proposal were implemented it would cause the changes.

(E) is definitely correct. Using the past tense changes the meaning of the sentence; saying a proposal "was" something implies that it's no longer that thing. We can say that a "proposal is a call for restrictions" or that the "proposal would call for restrictions".

D further changes the meaning with "which include"; according to the original sentence there are only 3 restrictions, but "which include" implies that there are other restrictions as well.
Stuart Kovinsky wrote:
mmslf75 wrote:
In contrast to environmentalists proposals to limit emissions of certain
pollutants, the administration proposed calling for mandatory restrictions of
only three such pollutants from power plants-mercury, sulfur dioxide, and
nitrogen oxides-and the plan would delay such cuts until 2010 or later.

A. administration proposed calling for mandatory restriction of

B. administration proposed a call for mandatory restrictions, including those for

C. administration, proposing mandatory restrictions on

D. administration's proposal was a call for mandatory restrictions, which include

E. administration's proposal would call for mandatory restrictions on
When posting future SC questions, please set it up as I have above, actually underlining the underlined portion of the sentence and leaving a blank line between choices; it makes it much easier for people to address the question.

We use "would" whenever something is hypothetical, or contrary to reality. The proposal hasn't actually happened in the real world, so if the proposal were implemented it would cause the changes.

(E) is definitely correct. Using the past tense changes the meaning of the sentence; saying a proposal "was" something implies that it's no longer that thing. We can say that a "proposal is a call for restrictions" or that the "proposal would call for restrictions".

D further changes the meaning with "which include"; according to the original sentence there are only 3 restrictions, but "which include" implies that there are other restrictions as well.


Stuart,

Point taken w.r.t posting of questions ;-)

So, here we make use of "WOULD", because the proposal hasn't actually happened in the real world

So is it that, usage of WOULD is NOT restricted ONLY to presence of PAST TENSE key words in a sentence ??

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Sun Jan 03, 2010 12:32 am
"would" can be used subjunctively to indicate hypothetical events, ie, "would-be" events.

For example, "If I were rich, I WOULD go on a holiday!"

...Stuart's original response should have been sufficient to answer this question:
So is it that, usage of WOULD is NOT restricted ONLY to presence of PAST TENSE key words in a sentence ??
(Yes, WOULD is NOT restricted ONLY to PAST TENSE because, again, WOULD can be used for hypothetical events).
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:47 pm
Thanked: 15 times

by ArunangsuSahu » Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:46 am
(E) is parallel and correct construction

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 258
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:39 am
Location: Bengaluru, India
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:640

by sachindia » Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:32 am
Stuart Kovinsky wrote:
mmslf75 wrote:
In contrast to environmentalists proposals to limit emissions of certain
pollutants, the administration proposed calling for mandatory restrictions of
only three such pollutants from power plants-mercury, sulfur dioxide, and
nitrogen oxides-and the plan would delay such cuts until 2010 or later.

A. administration proposed calling for mandatory restriction of

B. administration proposed a call for mandatory restrictions, including those for

C. administration, proposing mandatory restrictions on

D. administration's proposal was a call for mandatory restrictions, which include

E. administration's proposal would call for mandatory restrictions on
When posting future SC questions, please set it up as I have above, actually underlining the underlined portion of the sentence and leaving a blank line between choices; it makes it much easier for people to address the question.

We use "would" whenever something is hypothetical, or contrary to reality. The proposal hasn't actually happened in the real world, so if the proposal were implemented it would cause the changes.

(E) is definitely correct. Using the past tense changes the meaning of the sentence; saying a proposal "was" something implies that it's no longer that thing. We can say that a "proposal is a call for restrictions" or that the "proposal would call for restrictions".

D further changes the meaning with "which include"; according to the original sentence there are only 3 restrictions, but "which include" implies that there are other restrictions as well.

Hi Stuart,
Does 'in contrast to' act like 'like' or 'unlike' which are used in comparisons and so do we need parallelism ?
Regards,
Sach

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 4:08 am

Re: "in contrast with" and "in contrast to"

by luckphy » Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:50 pm
There is slightly difference between in contrast with and in contrast to, in fact, they could be used interchangeably as both can be interpreted as "comparison". However, the usage of the latter is more common. According to this review course, contrast is often followed by to and occasionally with, which means "contrast or the opposite". In formal writing, such as scientific research articles, “in contrast to” is a preferred phrase to use.