The automobile company announced that the average price

[vivs.gupta]

Why cant the average price be compare to the average price of cars and trucks, although it is not explicitly mentioned?( As in the case of Bush vs Ron)

so yeah, i don't know where this whole idea of "comparing things that aren't actually there" comes from, but it's not a real thing. the principal things that are actually being compared must BE THERE.

let's take a look at the examples you gave:

Ron earns more than Bush.

this sentence compares "ron" and "bush", both of which are explicitly in the sentence.

Ron earns more than Bush does.

this sentence compares "ron earns" and "bush does", both of which are explicitly in the sentence.

Ron earns more than does Bush.

this sentence compares "ron earns" and "does bush", both of which are explicitly in the sentence.

Wont the same set of rules apply here?
i.e.
The automobile company announced that the average price
of next year’s models would decrease four-tenths of one percent, amounting to about $72, as compared with comparably equipped cars and trucks this year.

so, as you may have surmised by now, the answer is no. if the first part of the comparison is "the average price of x", that should be compared with another price, not with something comparable to x itself.

Ron,

Is the following sentence correct:
prices of this year's cars are lower than of last year's cars

[tim]

well, you have an "X are lower than Y" construction. what are the exact, literal words X and Y are replacing? if you do that right, you should have your answer. let me know if you need any further help..

[Doe007]

When comparing between options A and B, here is my 2 cents!

Option A contains "price would decrease four-tenths of one percent" but it does not mention about decrease from what!!

Option B correctly mentions "price would decrease four-tenths of one percent from that of ............".

Am I correct in my analysis?

[RonPurewal]

When comparing between options A and B, here is my 2 cents!

Option A contains "price would decrease four-tenths of one percent" but it does not mention about decrease from what!!

Option B correctly mentions "price would decrease four-tenths of one percent from that of ............".

Am I correct in my analysis?

somewhat.

choice (a) actually tries to make that comparison, but it doesn't use a valid wording.
in that choice, "(as) compared to" is used incorrectly. if you mean to say that something went from value A down to value B, you can't say "decreased by xxxxx compared to A".

so, you've identified where the problem is, although perhaps not the exact nature of the problem itself.

[Doe007]

somewhat.

choice (a) actually tries to make that comparison, but it doesn't use a valid wording.
in that choice, "(as) compared to" is used incorrectly. if you mean to say that something went from value A down to value B, you can't say "decreased by xxxxx compared to A".

so, you've identified where the problem is, although perhaps not the exact nature of the problem itself.

What is going to decrease? --> Price of next year’s models.
How much will be the decrease? --> "Four-tenths of one percent as compared with comparably equipped cars and trucks this year"

Regarding option A, What I mean here is as follows:
1. Percent is compared with cars and trucks illogically.
2. Use of "as compared with" is incorrect.
3. When somebody says that decrease by some percent, the question comes "percent of what?". Answer is missing in option A. Point to note: next year’s models are not existent now and so the decrease is not upon existing cars.

[RonPurewal]

it seems you're getting a handle on how to identify incorrect comparisons. at the end of the day, that's what matters here.

[HanzZ]

Hello experts,

Can we eliminate c and d on the grounds that it isn't logical to have 'the automobile company' after the open modifier? Do both of them compare cars/models to company?

Thanks!

[HanzZ]

Hello experts,

Here's the sister version of this question in prep (I will re-post if it's not cool to put it here for comparison purpose) :

In addition to her work on the Miocene hominid fossil record, Mary Leakey contributed to archaeology through her discovery of the earliest direct evidence of hominid activity and through her painstaking documentation of East African cave paintings.

(A) Mary Leakey contributed to archaeology through her discovery of the earliest direct evidence of hominid activity and through her painstaking documentation of
(B) Mary Leakey contributed to archaeology by her discovery of the earliest direct evidence of hominid activity and painstakingly documenting
(C) Mary Leakey was a contributor to archaeology by discovering the earliest direct evidence of hominid activity and with her painstaking documentation of
(D) Mary Leakey's contributions to archaeology include her discovery of the earliest direct evidence of hominid activity and painstakingly documenting
(E) Mary Leakey's contributions to archaeology include her discovering the earliest direct evidence of hominid activity and painstaking documentation of

After reading all posts here, I can comfortably eliminate B, C, D and E. However I have a question regarding A:

'In addition to her work...' is followed by 'Mary Leakey' instead of 'Mary Leakey's'.........

Thanks in advance for your thought.

[tim]

'In addition to her work...' is followed by 'Mary Leakey' instead of 'Mary Leakey's'.

I'm assuming your intention here was to inquire about the pronoun. It turns out that it is okay for a possessive pronoun to refer to a subject or object noun, but not the other way around.

[tim]

Hello experts,

Can we eliminate c and d on the grounds that it isn't logical to have 'the automobile company' after the open modifier? Do both of them compare cars/models to company?

Thanks!

I don't think C does what you describe. As for D, yes that is an invalid comparison.

[chetan86]

Also, it's okay to say that the price will decrease from the current year's price, because in this case, that's the same thing as saying "as compared with" - the point is that, whatever the price is this year, it's going to go down a certain percentage next year - from this year's price to next year's price.

B. The automobile company announced that the average price of next year’s cars and trucks would decrease four-tenths of one percent, or about $72, from that of comparably equipped models this year.

I rejected option B because of the construction 'decrease X from Y'.

Could you please explain(meaningwise) how 'decrease x from Y' is equivalent to 'as compared with'?

Thanks!!!

[RonPurewal]

it's not "decrease x from y"; there are no parallel structures "x" and "y".
the basic sentence is just "the statistic has decreased".
two statistically descripitive modifiers are added:
• "from [original level]"
• "(by) [amount/percentage of decrease]"

The city's population has declined.
The city's population has declined from its peak in 1970.
The city's population has declined (by) 20 percent from its peak in 1970.

[gmatkiller_24]

Hi， Ron：

is it the decrease and below in choice C redundant?

also,

is it the decrease and less somewhat weird in choice D? (but i dont know how to articulate what indeed goes wrong)

please illustrate, thank you!

[RonPurewal]

Hi， Ron：

is it the decrease and below in choice C redundant?

in this context, yes, that combination is redundant.

on the other hand, it is possible to have both "decrease" and "below" in a sentence-- as long as they are used in a way that does not create redundancy. (e.g., My weight has never decreased below 170 pounds.)

[RonPurewal]

is it the decrease and less somewhat weird in choice D? (but i dont know how to articulate what indeed goes wrong)

if "less than xxxx" is a modifier, it has to be pinned onto the thing that's actually less than xxxx.
e.g.,
Gas currently costs $2.77 per gallon, less than it has cost at any other point in the last five years.
($2.77/gal is less than the price at any other point in the last 5 years.)

in this sentence, the actual price is not named, so there's nothing for the modifier to describe.