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)
"in contrast with" and "in contrast to"
This topic has expert replies
-
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 1302
- Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
- Location: Toronto
- Thanked: 539 times
- Followed by:164 members
- GMAT Score:800
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).
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
In contrast to environmentalists proposals to limit emissions of certainTestluv 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).
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
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.
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
IMO E. D has problem with parallelism ( which include isn't parallel to would delay),mmslf75 wrote:In contrast to environmentalists proposals to limit emissions of certainTestluv 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).
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 ?)
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.
Think critically,
Assume nothing.
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 503
- Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:53 pm
- Thanked: 31 times
- Followed by:2 members
Why to use WOULD here, we are NOT told that something is being said in past abt futuresadullaevd wrote:IMO E. D has problem with parallelism ( which include isn't parallel to would delay),mmslf75 wrote:In contrast to environmentalists proposals to limit emissions of certainTestluv 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).
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 ?)
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.
- Stuart@KaplanGMAT
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3225
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:40 pm
- Location: Toronto
- Thanked: 1710 times
- Followed by:614 members
- GMAT Score:800
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.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
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 | 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
- hrishi19884
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 407
- Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:20 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 20 times
- Followed by:1 members
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 503
- Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:53 pm
- Thanked: 31 times
- Followed by:2 members
Stuart Kovinsky wrote: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.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
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: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.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
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
"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:
For example, "If I were rich, I WOULD go on a holiday!"
...Stuart's original response should have been sufficient to answer this question:
(Yes, WOULD is NOT restricted ONLY to PAST TENSE because, again, WOULD can be used for hypothetical events).So is it that, usage of WOULD is NOT restricted ONLY to presence of PAST TENSE key words in a sentence ??
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 382
- Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:47 pm
- Thanked: 15 times
-
- 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
Stuart Kovinsky wrote: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.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
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
Sach
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.