In california today

[BG]

In California today, Hispanics under the age of eighteen account for more than 43%, compared with a decade ago, when it was about 35%.
A.......
B.Of the Californians under the age of eighteen, today more than 43% of them are Hispanic, compared with a decade ago, when it was about 35%.
C.Today, more than 43% of Californians under the age of eighteen are Hispanic, compared with about 35% decade ago.
D.Today, compared to a decade ago, Californians who are Hispanics under the age of eighteen account for more than 43%, whereas it was about 35%.
E. Today, Hispanics under the age of eighteen in California account for more than 43%, unlike a decade ago, when it was about 35%.
Ans: C. I chose A

Why is A wrong?

In C,
"More than 43% of Californians under the age of eighteen are Hispanic" has different meaning with" Hispanics under the age of eighteen account for more than 43%". Which one is correct?
"Compared" follows "Hispanic" immediately, does it mean "compared" modify "Hispanic"? In my view, "compared" should modify "43%".
"are Hispanic" , "are Hispanics", "is Hispanic" or " is Hispanics". Which one is correct?

Why is E wrong?

[RonPurewal]

NOTE:
if something appears on the correct answer to an official problem, then
* it's correct
* its usage makes sense
this renders redundant 2 of the questions you've asked below.

in general, you should not ask "is this correct?" if something appears in a correct answer, because ... you know it is.

so, if you're LOOKING AT A CORRECT ANSWER and asking
(a) is this incorrect?
vs.
(b) can this structure be used correctly in a way of which i wasn't previously aware?

the answer will always be (b).

or:
correct answers are correct.

thanks.

Why is A wrong?
Why is E wrong?

both of these choices are wrong for the same reason: neither of them specifies what we're taking percentages of.
you need to say "43% of californians", or "43% of the population of california", or 43% of... something.

In C,
"More than 43% of Californians under the age of eighteen are Hispanic" has different meaning with" Hispanics under the age of eighteen account for more than 43%". Which one is correct?

the first is correct, because it actually means something. see above.
also, as remarked above, you know that the first one is correct, because it's in the correct answer.

--

if you append "...of california's population" onto the end of the second one, so that it actually becomes meaningful, then it says something quite different from the meaning of the first one. post back if you don't see the difference.

"Compared" follows "Hispanic" immediately, does it mean "compared" modify "Hispanic"?

first: you know it can't, because that's the correct answer. if "hispanic" were erroneously compared to a percentage, then this couldn't be the correct answer.
apparently, "compared with"/"compared to" can be used to modify the statistic in the preceding clause, even if that statistic doesn't come right before the comma. this is a lesson that you can draw by yourself from looking at this problem, simply by noting what appears in the correct answer.

In my view, "compared" should modify "43%".

well, sure. it must, for the sentence to make any sense at all.
so clearly the lesson you should learn here is that this particular type of modifier is more flexible than you had thought. you should obviously not conclude that the correct answer contains an ungrammatical modifier.
remember: correct answers are correct.

"are Hispanic" , "are Hispanics", "is Hispanic" or " is Hispanics". Which one is correct?

oh boy.
actually, ALL of these can be correct, in the proper context, although the last is a bit awkward.

the first two, of course, must go with something plural. in this case, that would be "43% of californians".
they both make sense, though; the only difference is that "hispanic" is an adjective while "hispanics" is a plural noun. the difference is akin to the distinction between "43% of the pills seized were yellow" and "43% of the pills seized were yellow pills".

the last two must go with something singular, which, in this case, would be "43% of the population".
they both make sense, but "is Hispanics" is too awkward in my opinion; it would be better written as "consists of hispanics".

[NIKESH_PAHUJA]

Ron,

Hats off to you.........You are simply best........!!

[RonPurewal]

Ron,

Hats off to you.........You are simply best........!!

thanks man

[sudaif]

Ron:
in D - is the placement/location of the phrase "compared to a decade ago" correct?
also, in E - the use of "unlike" is wrong. correct?
thanks

[tim]

there is no real problem with "unlike" in e, as that indicates a valid comparison in that today is unlike a decade ago. placement in d is not the issue, because the phrase itself is invalid. "compared to" needs an actual comparison, i.e. something being more/better/etc. than something else. we don't have that sort of language here..

[anil4410]

Can we use "compared to/compared with" to eliminate wrong answers here?

[RonPurewal]

Can we use "compared to/compared with" to eliminate wrong answers here?

nope. in fact, there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between "compare to" and "compare with". they are exactly the same.

if you have our OLD edition strategy guides -- two or three editions old, at this point (2007 edition) -- you will notice some mistaken information in those guides. at one point, we thought we had found evidence that these two idioms are used in different ways; however, upon further investigation, we have actually found no evidence to substantiate any sort of difference between the two.

[rx_11]

Hi, instructors,

What's wrong with B?

[RonPurewal]

Hi, instructors,

What's wrong with B?

B. Of the Californians under the age of eighteen, today more than 43% of them are Hispanic, compared with a decade ago, when it was about 35%.

* pronoun error: the pronoun "it" doesn't stand for anything at all.

* redundant/ungrammatical structure: you can't have both "of the californians..." and "of them". that's like saying "43% of them of the californians".

[vikram4689]

ron,
i think we can eliminate all but c) on the basis that neither "it" has an antecedent nor it is one of those cases where "it" can stand without any antecedent

am i correct ?

[tim]

i would agree..

[vikram4689]

i would agree..

considering two usages of "would" post45300.html#p45300 , it seems that you are highly unlikely to agree :)

[RonPurewal]

i would agree..

considering two usages of "would" post45300.html#p45300 , it seems that you are highly unlikely to agree :)

"would" is also used for extra politeness. i.e., would you shut the door, please? is much more polite than shut the door, please.

[gsj677]

Hi experts,

in the wrong options, are there any problems about the comparison?

Such as in (A), is the subject Hispanic under the age of eighteen compared with a decade ago, which is time.

Please correct me if I am wrong

Thanks