"in contrast with" and "in contrast to"

[mmslf75]

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)

[Testluv]

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).

[mmslf75]

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 ?)

[umaa]

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.

[sadullaevd]

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.

[mmslf75]

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

[Stuart@KaplanGMAT]

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.

[hrishi19884]

Stuart, you Rock man!

[mmslf75]

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.

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 ??

[Testluv]

"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).

[ArunangsuSahu]

(E) is parallel and correct construction

[sachindia]

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 ?

[luckphy]

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.