Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums

[zhihua0215]

the question is which choice is correct.


A recent review of pay scales indicates [u]that CEO�s now earn an average of 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, compared to a ratio of 42 times[/u] in 1980.

A. that CEO�s now earn an average of 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, compared to a ratio of 42 times
B. that, on average, CEO�s now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, a ratio that compares to 42 times
C. that, on average, CEO�s now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, as compared to 42 times their pay, the ratio
D. CEO�s who now earn on average 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, as compared to 42 times their pay, the ratio
E. CEO�s now earning an average of 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, compared to the ratio of 42 times


this question is so difficult that I can't think about others .


Thank you in advance.

[2006]

A would seem to be correct as it is exactly the same as the 'underlined' part of the original sentence. Did you copy the question correctly?

CEOs should not have an apostrophe; it is not possessive.

[zhihua0215]

It is said that the plural of the CEO can be either CEOs or CEO's. According to the meaning of the sentence , I think"CEO's"should be plural.But I am not sure.


Back to the question, somebody has said B is the best choice and others said C is the best, since A
"A. that CEO�s now earn an average of 419 times more pay than blue-collar workers, compared to a ratio of 42 times" has some kind flaw, for example , there is no subject to "compared".


So I am really confused.

the English grammar is too difficult.

[2006]

"CEOs" is plural but it is not possessive, so don't use an apostrophe.

C and D are awkward ; I don't like them. A is the best, followed by B and E.

This is difficult, so don't waste too much time on it.

[buddhaheart]

You won�t pick E. because what follows the MCl (Main Clause) � A recent review of pay scales indicates that� should be a SCl (Subordinate Clause) and �earning� is only a gerund.

You won�t pick D. either because what follows the subject �CEO�s� in the SCl is another dependent NCl (Noun Clause) �who now earn ...� without its SMCl (Sub-main Clause).

A. seems fine except it lacks a conjunctive (e.g. �as�) after the comma which appears in C. & D.

So we�re now left with B. & C. to choose from. Both look fine except for their somewhat awkward endings. I can�t see the place of �their pay� in �as compared to 42 times their pay, the ratio�. It�s redundant. It would be better to say �as compared to 42 times, the ratio�. B. seems to change this aspect of the problem by re-arranging the ending & turns it into a sentence to read �a ratio that compares to 42 times�. Strictly speaking, a �ratio� can�t �compare�. The word �ratio� is not an animate object and can�t do the comparing.

So I would say I like B. best. C. & A. would be my 2nd & 3rd choice.

[2006]

Why do we want a conjunction after the comma in A?

[Mary W. Ng]

[pinenut]

[Mary W. Ng]

[buddhaheart]

Since the past participle �compared� is not used to qualify the subject �CEO�s�, it can�t form a participial (adjective) phrase in �compared to a ratio ...� . I believe this then becomes a comma splice (fault). It occurs when you use a comma by itself to join 2 independent clauses. One way to correct that is to turn the second clause into a dependent one by using a subordinating conjunction such as �as� or �when� (as in C. & D.) if the material fits.

I wish to correct a mistake in my last response by referring to the clause �who now earn ...� as a noun clause when in fact it�s a relative (adjective) clause as Mary correctly mentioned in her
response to the inquirer.

I also wish to say the word �earning� should be referred to as the present participle and not as a gerund (verb-noun) in this context.

[2006]

I don't see how "compared to a ratio of 42 times in 1980." is an independent clause.

[buddhaheart]

Absolutely, I can�t see "compared to a ratio of 42 times in 1980" being an independent clause myself. My apology. I was merely trying to point out the idea of a comma splice and apply it to option B. (A. by mistake) in which you�ve 2 independent but somewhat related clauses joined by a mere comma.

Other than that, I believe the argument in my last post is still valid. That is, if the participial (adjective) phrase �compared to a ratio of 42 times in 1980� couldn�t be used to qualify the subject �CEO�s�, a subordinating conjunction such as �as� or �when� (as in C. & D.) may be employed to turn it into a subordinate clause.

For example, �Deceived by his friends, he lost all hope.� The participle phrase �deceived by his friends� qualifies the subject �he�. I can�t see this being the case here in the sentence in question. Maybe you or someone can?

May I then reconsider my choice. This is the hard part. Grammatical errors are obvious in D. & E. B. has a comma fault. A. lacks something as explained. How about C. eh?

[Mary W. Ng]

[zhihua0215]

At first , I really appreciate the professional,considerate analysis of you(2006,pinenut,buddhaheart,mary).



Second,under your help, I think C is the best choice. But could you help me to transfer C to a normal sentence, because I don't know where "the radio "should be in the sentence.

A recent review of pay scales indicates that, on average, CEO�s now earn 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, as compared to 42 times their pay, [u]the ratio [/u].

Thanks

[Mary W. Ng]

Hi zhihua0215,