There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the si

There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

A. There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing. The legal limits on the size of monkfish is being compared with the legal limits on the size of cod and haddock.

B. There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught, unlike cod or haddock, a circumstance that contributes to depleting them because they are being overfished. The comparison is incorrect. In this sentence, legal limits on the size of monkfish is being compared to cod or haddock.

C. There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught, but not for monkfish, which contributes to its depletion through overfishing. The clause “, which contributes to its depletion through overfishing” seems to be modifying “monkfish”.

D. Unlike cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, which contributes to its depletion by being overfished. For the comparison to be parallel, after “Unlike cod and haddock” the subject that “cod and haddock” is being compared with needs to be mentioned.

E. Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, contributing to their depletion because they are overfished. For the comparison to be parallel, after “Unlike catching cod and haddock” the subject that “catching cod and haddock” is being compared with needs to be mentioned.

- Nitha Jay

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended core meaning of this sentence is that there are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught, and the fact that there are no such limits contributes to the overfishing-related depletion of the monkfish.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Comparison + Grammatical Construction + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• A comparison can only be drawn between similar things.
• Information vital to the core meaning of the sentence must not be placed between two commas.
• “being” is only to be used when it is part of a noun phrase or represents the passive continuous verb tense; the use of passive continuous must be justified in the context.

A: Correct. This answer choice uses the phrase "depletion through overfishing", conveying the intended meaning - that the fact that there are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught contributes, specifically, to the overfishing-related depletion of the monkfish. Further, Option A correctly compares the clauses "There are no legal limits...on the size of monkfish that can be caught" and "there are for cod and haddock". Additionally, Option A only places extra information - the fact that there are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught - between two commas. Besides, Option A is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

B: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "depleting them because they are being overfished"; the construction of this phrase incorrectly implies that the fact that there are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught contributes to the general depletion of the monkfish because it is overfished; the intended meaning is that the fact that there are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught contributes, specifically, to the overfishing-related depletion of the monkfish. Further, Option B incorrectly compares "the size of monkfish that can be caught" to "cod or haddock"; please remember, a comparison can only be drawn between similar things. Additionally, Option B uses the needlessly wordy phrase "contributes to depleting them", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

C: This answer choice incorrectly places information vital to the core meaning of the sentence - the fact that there are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught - between two commas; please remember, information vital to the core meaning of the sentence must not be placed between two commas.

D: This answer choice incorrectly compares "cod and haddock" to "legal size limits on catching monkfish"; please remember, a comparison can only be drawn between similar things. Further, Option D incorrectly uses the word "being", leading to awkwardness and redundancy; “being” is only to be used when it is part of a noun phrase or represents the passive continuous verb tense; the use of passive continuous must be justified in the context.

E: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "depletion because they are overfished"; the construction of this phrase incorrectly implies that the fact that there are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught contributes to the general depletion of the monkfish because it is overfished; the intended meaning is that the fact that there are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught contributes, specifically, to the overfishing-related depletion of the monkfish. Further, Option E incorrectly compares "catching cod and haddock" to "legal size limits on catching monkfish"; please remember, a comparison can only be drawn between similar things.

Hence, A is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Extra Information Between Commas" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

fish can be singular or plural. However, since all options (other than C) use them/their, this is one indication that fish is used as plural here.

Also, pronoun ambiguity (a pronoun with multiple antecedents) is something that GMAT exhibits tolerance for. In this case, it is easier to realize this, because all options (except C) contain them/their; so if you think their is ambiguous in A, same is the case in all other options (except C). This is another indication that clearly pronoun ambiguity is not being tested in this case.

Among other things, C has a big issue of which modifying monkfish and hence, C can anyway not be correct.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses pronoun ambiguity in significant detail. If you can PM you email-id, I can send you the corresponding section.

There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

A. There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing

B. There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught, unlike cod or haddock, a circumstance that contributes to depleting them because they are being overfished. - Wrong Comparison

C. There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught, but not for monkfish, which contributes to its depletion through overfishing .
Which modifies Monkfish

D. Unlike cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, which contributes to its depletion by being overfished.
- Wrong Comparison

E. Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, contributing to their depletion because they are overfished.
- Wrong Comparison

Unlike -> It is used to compare nouns. In case we want to compare clauses that we need to use whereas.
Eliminate -> B, D and E
B - Compares legal limits to cod or haddock
D - Compares cod and haddock to catching monkfish
E - While the comparison is correct as they both compare catching of cod and haddock and monkfish, use of unlike is correct.

Use of which in C -> Implies monkfish itself contributes to its depletion.

Choice A -> Perfect comparison of legal limit on size

'Unlike is utterly wrong.

A C left. not for monkfish is wrong (Legal limits are on the size of monkfish and not all monkfish) A is correct.

A. There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing
"As" used correctly with a "clause". "Their" closer to the monkfish.

B. There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught, unlike cod or haddock, a circumstance that contributes to depleting them because they are being overfished.
Wrong comparison [Should be - unlike the limit for cod or haddock]
What does them refer to, cod or haddock instead of monkfish? Changes meaning.

C. There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught, but not for monkfish, which contributes to its depletion through overfishing.
Meaning error, monkfish cannot contribute to its depletion

D. Unlike cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, which contributes to its depletion by being overfished.
Wrong comparison [Should be - monkfish does not …]
Meaning error, monkfish cannot contribute to its depletion

E. Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, contributing to their depletion because they are overfished.
Wrong comparison [Should be - catching monkfish does not …]
What does their/they refer to, pronoun/antecedent error.

Thanks

Answer is A

A. There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.
CORRECT

B. There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught, unlike cod or haddock, a circumstance that contributes to depleting them because they are being overfished.
WRONG:- Meaning change :- The placement of "unlike cod and hammock" suggest that cod and hammock are unlikely to be caught. "contributes to depleting them" is wrong

C. There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught, but not for monkfish, which contributes to its depletion through overfishing.
WRONG:-Placement of "but not for monkfish" is wrong, "WHICH" modifies the phrase immediately before it. It seems monkfish are themselves contributing to their depletion.
",but not for monkfish," is also bound within commas- this is incorrect because "but not for monkfish" is an essential information and cannot be places within commas. (information inside the double commas is additional and can be ignored)

D. Unlike cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, which contributes to its depletion by being overfished.
WRONG:- Wrong comparison. Cod and haddock are nouns that are compared verb/action "catching monkfish"

E. Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, contributing to their depletion because they are overfished.
WRONG:- Too many possessive pronouns without clear subject.

Hello Experts,

How is option A correct?
their in option A can refer to cod or haddock or monk fish, right?

Could someone please explain me this?

Thanks

In most -- but certainly not all! -- cases, the pronoun "their" will refer to the most recent plural noun on the GMAT. In (A), "monkfish" is the closest plural, so there are absolutely no worries about pronoun ambiguity in this case.

For what it's worth, pronoun ambiguity isn't an absolute rule on the GMAT, anyway. For more on this, check out our YouTube webinar on pronouns: https://gmatclub.com/forum/ucp.php?i=164.

For any other questions on this particular SC exercise, check out the excellent explanations in these links:

• https://gmatclub.com/forum/there-are-no ... l#p1713802
• https://gmatclub.com/forum/there-are-no ... l#p1112383

There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

(A) There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

(B) There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught, unlike cod or haddock, a circumstance that contributes to depleting them because they are being overfished.

(C) There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught, but not for monkfish, which contributes to its depletion through overfishing.

(D) Unlike cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, which contributes to its depletion by being overfished.

(E) Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, contributing to their depletion because they are overfished.

Dear mikemcgarry, MagooshExpert Carolyn, GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja,
I have some different views need your confirmation.

#1, The subject of answer choice B and E
both B and E have same construction " there are no legal size limits ... " , IMO, "there" is not the real subject, but "no legal size limits" is the real subject. Right?

#2, (E) Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, contributing to their depletion because they are overfished
based on above , i think the comprision in E is:
catching cod and haddock , which is a gerund , VS leagal size limits, rather than catching cod and haddock VS there

Anyone think there is a redundancy in E? Both "comtribute to "and "because" imply a cause.

(B) There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught, unlike cod or haddock, a circumstance that contributes to depleting them because they are being overfished.
#3, comparison in B
Honestly, I think the comparison is minkfish and cod or haddock, -- logical, I view it omits "legal limits on the size of",


I am not sure what's my fault,

Genuienly need your clarification

Have a nice day
>_~

Hi zoezhuyan

Glad to help

I think it's easier to see the parallel in E if we rearrange this part of the sentence (which is perfectly fine to do):

There are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, unlike catching cod and haddock

With this construction, it's clear that the comparison is intended to be between "catching monkfish" and "catching cod and haddock". However, this comparison is not correctly in parallel. If we look at the nouns that are in parallel, then we see:

There are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, unlike catching cod and haddock

So the comparison (incorrectly, of course), is really between "no legal size limits" and "catching cod and haddock", as you said

You are right that "contribute to" and "because" in E both imply a cause, and there's definitely a slight redundancy. The sentence is intending to say that the limits contribute to the population decrease, and that happens because they are being overfished.

For (B), as with (E), to see the comparison we need to look at the overall structure. The structure is:

There are X, unlike Y

So X is being compared with Y. With answer choice (E), that was "no legal size limits" and "catching cod and haddock". Here, that is now "no legal limits" and "cod and haddock", which still doesn't make sense. In order for the comparison to be between "monkfish" and "cod and haddock", the structure would need to be parallel, like:

There are no legal limits on the size of X, in contrast to the limits on the size of Y

This is a much more awkward construction than in the correct answer A, but it shows how we would need the structure to be parallel in order to be comparing the correct things. For more about this, see these articles:

• GMAT Sentence Correction: Comparisons
• GMAT Sentence Correction: Parallelism

I hope that helps!
-Carolyn

MagooshExpert

Hi Carolyn,
There are no legal limits on the size of X, UNLIKE the limits on the size of Y

Is it correct?

Please confirm

Have a nice day

>_~

Hi zoezhuyan,

This isn't quite correct, because we aren't saying that the limits themselves are unlike the other limits -- we are saying that the "existence" of the limits on X is unlike the "existence" of the limits on Y. The word "unlike" here is describing the whole situation; the fact that there are limits on X, but no limits on Y. If we directly say:

There are no limits on X, UNLIKE the limits on Y

Then we are directly comparing the "limits on X" to the "limits on Y". Normally, this kind of comparison makes sense, but in this case it does not. We aren't saying that the limits are different -- we are saying that there are NO limits on Y. So just using "unlike" doesn't work here; we need to use a different comparison structure.

Hope that helps!
-Carolyn

Hi GMAT Experts,

Can anyone please help explain what the clause "a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing," modifies? And if it is a modifier, why doesn't the "touch rule" applies here?

Thank you!
pruekv

The "circumstance" referred to is the fact that there are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught. And I wouldn't call this part ("circumstance...") a modifier. Instead, it's just some additional, comma-separated, information (i.e. "Che Guevara was a revolutionary, a man who changed the course of history in Latin America.")

The construction in choice (A) is really just an alternative for something like this:

"There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught. This circumstance contributes to their depletion through overfishing."

If you are okay with that last pair of sentences, then you should be okay with choice (A)!

Thank you GMATNinja !

Just one more follow up question on this topic. How would I know whether the clause or phrase following a comma is just an additional information or a modifier?

Thanks!
pruekv