An international convention regulating trade in endangered species, es

(A) could be significantly weakened were it not for restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species, warn conservation and animal welfare groups. seems awkward and if conditions seems to be more appropriate
(B) could be significantly weakened if restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species aren’t eased, warn conservation and animal welfare groups. seems correct and concise
(C) couldn’t be significantly weakened without restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species being eased, warn conservation and animal welfare groups.if conditions seems to be more appropriate
(D) can’t be significantly weakened if restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species are eased, warn conservation and animal welfare groups.seems awkward
(E) could be significantly weakened if restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species are eased, warn conservation and animal welfare groups. seems to alter meaning

I think
A - is very close...An international convention... could be significantly weakened were it not for restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species, (the sentence sounds like a complete statement, perhaps an assertion but NOT a warning by welfare groups) hence makes the clause 'warn conservation and animal welfare groups' redundant.

B - meaning is opposite here...could be significantly weakened if restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species are (NOT aren't eased)...(International convention could be weakened...if restrictions are eased - this is the warning.

C - again the meaning is distorted....1st part of the sentence sounds like a complete statement which makes the clause 'could be significantly weakened if restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species aren't eased' redundant.

D. CAN BE (NOT can't be) [/b]significantly weakened [/b]if restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species are eased, warn conservation and animal welfare groups.

E. Best choice

Cheers,

An international convention regulating trade in endangered species, especially bears and tigers, could be significantly weakened were it not for restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species, warn conservation and animal welfare groups.

(A) could be significantly weakened were it not for restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species, warn conservation and animal welfare groups. were is right here but 'it' is not specifying properly the convention. If we put convention in place if it ,it doesnot make sense.Also 'it' can specify to trade as well.

(B) could be significantly weakened if restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species aren't eased, warn conservation and animal welfare groups.Wrong as per sentence meaning
(C) couldn't be significantly weakened without restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species being eased, warn conservation and animal welfare groups. changes the meaning
(D) can't be significantly weakened if restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species are eased, warn conservation and animal welfare groups. strong statement
(E) could be significantly weakened if restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species are eased, warn conservation and animal welfare groups. Right and correct in sentence meaning


IMO answer is E.Plz shed some light on same

Here's how you might think through this question to answer it without reading through all the answer choices:

Q: An international convention regulating trade in endangered species, especially bears and tigers, could be significantly weakened were it not for restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species, warn conservation and animal welfare groups.

(A) could be significantly weakened were it not for restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species, warn conservation and animal welfare groups.

Step 1:I read the sentence above and notice that the phrase "were it not for" bothers me. What is "it" referring to? So immediately I'm suspicious about (A).


(B) could be significantly weakened if restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species aren't eased, warn conservation and animal welfare groups.

Step 2:Looking at (B), this is opposite the original meaning! It shouldn't be "aren't eased"--it should be "are eased."

(C) couldn't be significantly weakened without restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species being eased, warn conservation and animal welfare groups.

Step 3:With (C), just reading "couldn't be significantly weakened" without reading the rest of the answer choice, I already know (C) is not what we want because again--it changes the meaning of the sentence to what is actually OPPOSITE of what we want.

(D) can't be significantly weakened if restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species are eased, warn conservation and animal welfare groups.

Step 4: (D): Same thing--"can't" should be "can"

(E) could be significantly weakened if restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species are eased, warn conservation and animal welfare groups.

Step 5: (E): This captures the meaning we want correctly. Interesting how (B), (C), and (D) have the opposite meaning of what we want.

Only (A) and (E) have the meaning we want. (A) has the awkward "were it not for" phrase. So only (E) looks fine.

How could E be correct?

After "if" there a clause and two nouns:
(restrictions...ARE eased (clause), warn conservation (noun phrase) AND animal welfare groups (noun phrase).

A clause cannot be parallel with a noun.

Ah--I don't think you're reading the sentence correctly.

Try flipping the sentence.

"Conservation and animal welfare groups WARN an international convention... could be significantly weakened if restrictions are blah blah blah."

See if that helps.

@ gmatpill in E (could/are) in the same sentence, is it ok in terms of verb/tense ? i read could is used for something possible in the past.

i am still not 100% clear about the usage of would/could .

"could" is not necessarily used to suggest something in the past.

You may be confusing "could" with "could have."



Additionally, "are" is referring to RESTRICTIONS while "could" is referring to "an international convention."

So the phrasing is
"if restrictions are eased"

and

"an international convention could be significantly weakened"

They are completely separate from each other.

Hope that helps.

could you please explain again the flipping by writing the complete sentence.

Thanks Zeke +1...

(E flipped):
"Conservation and animal welfare groups warn an international convention regulating trade in endangered species, especially bears and tigers, could be significantly weakened if restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species are eased."

But I think this sentence is still not good.

It should be :

"Conservation and animal welfare groups warn THAT an international convention regulating trade in endangered species, especially bears and tigers, could be significantly weakened if restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species are eased."

Or

"Conservation and animal welfare groups warn an international convention regulating trade in endangered species, especially bears and tigers, THAT it could be significantly weakened if restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species are eased."

Since the sentence implies both the above meanings, don't you think it is not a good sentence?

Your second suggestion does not seem to make sense. The first one is ideally what we want.
"Conservation and animal welfare groups warn THAT an international convention regulating..." would be better. But when you flip sentences--don't expect every single word to be accounted for. This is not a math problem where every single word matches up.

Your job is to pick the best answer from the answer choices. You flip for the purpose of understanding the sentence---not to analyze missing words.

An international convention regulating trade in endangered species, especially bears and tigers, could be significantly weakened were it not for restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species, warn conservation and animal welfare groups.

(A) could be significantly weakened were it not for restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species, warn conservation and animal welfare groups.

(B) could be significantly weakened if restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species aren't eased, warn conservation and animal welfare groups.
--> change the intended meaning.

(C) couldn't be significantly weakened without restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species being eased, warn conservation and animal welfare groups.

(D) can't be significantly weakened if restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species are eased, warn conservation and animal welfare groups.
--> change the intended meaning.

(E) could be significantly weakened if restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species are eased, warn conservation and animal welfare groups.
--> correct.

C and D need to be discarded right off the bat since they mean literally the opposite of the given sentence. ‘couldn’t’ and ‘can’t’, obviously, make negative assertions. I also see that B should be discarded for the same reason, ‘aren’t’ instead of ‘are’. A and E (actually all of the sentences) are grammatically correct, what we need to do is work with the meaning of the sentences. That in mind, I say E is correct because it is giving a clearer, more logical meaning than A.

The meaninig isn't correct there is a missing of if

aren't eased isn't correct usage since it provides ambigious meaning


couldn't isn't the right intended meaning the restriction is required and not completely against it

.
Similar reasoning as C
.

This is the intended meaning hence the answer
Therefore IMO E

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.