As rainfall began to decrease in the Southwest about the middle of the

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Concepts tested here: Pronouns + Verb Forms + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• “few”/”a few” are exclusively used to refer to plural nouns and countable nouns, and “less”/”a little” are exclusively used to refer to singular nouns and uncountable nouns; “any”, “none”, “all”, and “some” can be used to refer to plural and uncountable nouns and singular and countable nouns.
• "where" is only used to refer to a physical place.
• "limitations + on + noun" is the correct idiomatic construction.
• The simple past tense is used to refer to actions that concluded in the past.

A: Correct. This answer choice correctly refers to the noun "clans" with "whose". Further, Option A correctly uses the simple past tense verb "was" to refer to an action that concluded in the past. Additionally, Option A correctly uses the phrase "less limited" to refer to the uncountable noun "access". Moreover, Option A avoids the idiom error seen in Option E, as it does not uses the word "limitations". Besides, Option A is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

B: This answer choice incorrectly refers to the noun "clans" with "where"; remember, "where" is only used to refer to a physical place. Further, Option B uses the needlessly wordy clause "there was access to water that was less limited", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

C: This answer choice incorrectly refers to the noun "clans" with "where"; remember, "where" is only used to refer to a physical place. Further, Option C uses the needlessly indirect clause "they had less limited water access", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

D: This answer choice incorrectly uses "less" to refer to the countable noun "limitations"; please remember, “few”/”a few” are exclusively used to refer to plural nouns and countable nouns, and “less”/”a little” are exclusively used to refer to singular nouns and uncountable nouns.

E: This answer choice incorrectly uses the present participle ("verb+ing" - "having" in this sentence) to refer to an action that concluded in the past; please remember, the simple past tense is used to refer to actions that concluded in the past. Further, Option E incorrectly uses "less" to refer to the countable noun "limitations"; please remember, “few”/”a few” are exclusively used to refer to plural nouns and countable nouns, and “less”/”a little” are exclusively used to refer to singular nouns and uncountable nouns. Additionally, Option E incorrectly uses the unidiomatic construction "limitations + to + noun"; please remember, "limitations + on + noun" is the correct idiomatic construction.

Hence, A is the best answer choice.

All the best!
Experts' Global Team

A. Correct:
"whose" refers to "other clans".
The singular verb "was" has the subject "access"....

B. "where" is wrong and "there was access to water that was less limited" double passive.
C. "where" is wrong and tense "had limited" is also incorrect.
D. "with less limitations on water access" awakward construction.
E. "having .................." awakward construction.

Wow thanks!

I'm struggling with the fact that the term limitations is countable.

EG.

There are more limitations on spending
There are many limitations on spending

my ear can't hear the correctness
also, is this different with limit and restriction?

"where" is wrong. Eliminate B and C. "Having" in choice E is incorrect structure. Choice D, "less limitation" is not prefer than verb "less limited" follow V-A-N concision.

a. Correct
b. where modifies clan. this is wrong
c. where modifies clan. this is wrong
d. less to be used with countable noun limitations
e. less to be used with countable noun limitations

As rainfall began to decrease in the Southwest about the middle of the twelfth century, most of the Monument Valley Anasazi abandoned their homes to join other clans whose access to water was less limited.

CORRECT
A. whose access to water was less limited

"other clans" are not places, so "other clans where" is not logical
B. where there was access to water that was less limited
C. where they had less limited water access

"with" is refered to "most of the Monument Valley Anasazi" or to "other clans"?
D. with less limitations on water access

the use of "having" is not clear, what is it refered to?
E. having less limitations to water access

Pls find below the explanation to each answers;-

B. Passive cosntruction...its wordy.
C. Past perfect is wrong
D. This optyion has got two major issues:-
1. "with less limitations....." is a phrase of the dependent clause "their homes to join........"The clause mentioned does not has any verb.....
2. Meaning change "With less limitations" does not conveys the intended meaning...the intended meaning is the clan's water access was less limited" Not that it had lesser limitations...."I may be wrong here"
E. Again the same issue no verb for the clause starting with "their......" having is not a verb. Moreover having should used in a construction where you want to present an implied form....ie"having done this action, poor result is not expected"

Consider kudos if my post helps!!

Archit

Why option 'D' is wrong... "apart from awkaward wordy construction"
1) "with less limitation on water access" acts as preposition phrases and i am quite confuse whether it modife Anasazi or Clans?
2) prepositional phrases without comma as in above modify noun closer to it i.e. clans or can modify farther noun such as Anasazi too?
3)if prepositional phrases with comma is used in above case it will modify "clans"

The main problem with option D is that "limitations" is a countable quantity and so it must be modified by "fewer". "Less" can be used for uncountable nouns only.
Additionally, option D changes the meaning slightly. Original sentence says that "clans whose access to water was less limited" -- this access is supposed to be associated with nature as decrease of rainfall is the cause of migration. Option D mentions "limitations on water access" which means restrictions (imposed by human beings) on water access.

1) It is "clan" with less limitation on water access.
2) The following link has a very good demonstration on when modifiers can modify slightly far away noun and when far away modification is not possible.
noun-modifiers-can-modify-slightly-far-away-noun-135868.html
3) Is it a question or a statement?

As rainfall began to decrease in the Southwest about the middle of the twelfth century, most of the Monument Valley Anasazi abandoned their homes to join other clans whose access to water was less limited.
(A) whose access to water was less limited
(B) where there was access to water that was less limited
(C) where they had less limited water access
(D) with less limitations on water access
(E) having less limitations to water access

Option B) Awkward construction – Eliminated
Option C) I am confused with the usage of the “where”. Does it always need to denote a place?
I have eliminated Option C on the basis of “they”. I am not sure if “they” denote the clans or Monument Valley Anasazi.
Option E) having – sounds as if the clans possess the less limitations – doesn’t make sense.
Confused between A and D.
Please clarify.

As rainfall began to decrease in the Southwest about the middle of the twelfth century, most of the Monument Valley Anasazi abandoned their homes to join other clans whose access to water was less limited.

A. whose access to water was less limited
Correct

B. where there was access to water that was less limited
Usage of "where" is wrong here

C. where they had less limited water access
Same as B

D. with less limitations on water access
Fragmented sentence auxiliary verb is missing

E. having less limitations to water access
Usage of "having" is wrong


Hence A
Ans

Regards
SG

1. clans is not a place; where is wrong; B and C are out.
2. limitations is countable. Less would not go with a countable noun. Fewer would be more appropriate. D and E are out.
A remains

I thought 'whose' would be the subject, 'whose' referring to 'clans'

Or,

The rain, which (which refers to rain - singular) is . . .

The possessive form "whose" can never be a subject since it is used instead of a possessive noun - here "Clans' ", not "Clan" - The relative pronoun "who" could be a subject, but not "whose".

Consider the sentence:

The clans' access to water was limited....... The subject is "access", not "clans' ". The pronoun whose is used to replace "clans' ".

As rainfall began to decrease in the Southwest about the middle of the twelfth century, most of the Monument Valley Anasazi abandoned their homes to join other clans whose access to water was less limited.

A) whose access to water was less limited
D) with less limitations on water access
E) having less limitations to water access

These are the candidates.

E) I discarded this option because I found its beginning ("having") more complicated and less straightforward than those of options A and D.
D) I discarded this option because I thought that, in this context, "limitations on" was incorrect and should rather be "limitations to". However, I am not that sure as to whether this is correct.

Could you please give me your insights on the aspects commented above and point out the reasons for discarding these two options other than the fact that "less limitations" should be "fewer limitations"?

I do not see any problem with "having". A present participle modifier such as this one is alright and is used as an adjective (in this case for the noun "clan"). The problem with D and E is the awkward usage "water access". "Water access" may mean "access BY water" ( e.g. land access, water access etc.) and may not mean "access TO water".

@e-gmat: Don't we need to use here "Than" to complete to comparison "less ... than"? In your lectures you state that it's mandatory.

Can someone please explain, why "than" is not required here? MGMAT SC guide also gives the following sentence as incorrect: "With winter coming, I will have HIGHER energy bills", which also has an ellipse (than now), and it's considered as incorrect.