It is currently 19 Nov 2017, 14:58

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Verbal Forum Moderator
avatar
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 529

Kudos [?]: 641 [0], given: 606

Concentration: Technology, Other
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Aug 2015, 04:13
50
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

64% (01:15) correct 36% (01:26) wrong based on 1507 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than seventeen million pounds of shad in a single year, but by 1920, over-fishing and the proliferation of milldams and culverts that have blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less than four million pounds.

(A) that have blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less
(B) that blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less
(C) that blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams reduced landings to a lower amount
(D) having blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams reduced landings to less
(E) having blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams had reduced landings to an amount lower
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

--------------------------------------------------------
Regards :)

Kudos [?]: 641 [0], given: 606

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Manager
Affiliations: Manager
Joined: 06 Nov 2012
Posts: 168

Kudos [?]: 91 [1], given: 111

Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Sustainability
Schools: Boston U '19 (D)
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q49 V33
GPA: 3
WE: Supply Chain Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Aug 2015, 04:53
1
This post received
KUDOS
B. Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than seventeen million pounds of shad in a single year, but by 1920, over-fishing and the proliferation of mill dams and culverts that blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less than four million pounds.

Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than seventeen million pounds of shadin a single year, but by 1920, over-fishing and the proliferation of mill dams and culverts that blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less than four million pounds.

fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than seventeen million pounds of shad, over-fishing and the proliferation of mill dams and culverts had reduced landings to less than four million pounds.


How can the answer be 'B' ?

Doesn't use of Past perfect in B show that 'Reduced landings' is happening before 'Fisherman landed more than 17m pound' ?
_________________

Hard-work, Perseverance and Commitment.....

Kudos [?]: 91 [1], given: 111

Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 05 Apr 2015
Posts: 445

Kudos [?]: 240 [0], given: 39

Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Aug 2015, 07:55
Hi dinesh86,

as per the sentence construction it is obvious that "landing more than seventeen million pounds of shad in a single year" happened prior to the events in 1920 so there is no need to include that in the timeline.

As per B, "that" is rightly used to refer to what caused the blockage that is:"over-fishing and the proliferation of milldams and culverts" and the option follows a cause and effect relationship. so as per the timeline.. "had reduced" is correct..

In D and E.. having (verb-ing modifier) wrongly modifies" the milldams and culverts".

Regards,
Dom.

Last edited by dominicraj on 17 Aug 2015, 07:59, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 240 [0], given: 39

11 KUDOS received
Retired Moderator
User avatar
P
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4311

Kudos [?]: 8168 [11], given: 364

Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Aug 2015, 10:01
11
This post received
KUDOS
19
This post was
BOOKMARKED
There is an adage which says that be wary of the obvious. The first obvious is to say that when there was an earlier event in 1990, a later event as in 1920 should never be assigned a past perfect. Second, obvious is that use of less is inappropriate because 17 million pounds is countable. Therefore, a lower amount should be the right one. Both these assumptions are wrong as per the custom of American English, including GMAT.
It is customary to use a past perfect for a later event, when there is a time reference such as 1920. Don’t we say that I started my GMAT preparation in 2005 and by 2015, I had completed it. As there are exceptions to every rule, the use of past perfect is taken for granted in such rare cases.
17 million pounds is taken as a mass quantity rather than as countable individual pounds. Therefore the use of less is justified
By this token of reasoning, B is an acceptable answer.


(A) that have blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams have
reduced landings to less that have blocked is a wrong tense for an event that was completed in the past

(B) That blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less ------ Correct
(C) that blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams reduced landings to a lower amount ----- 'lower' is out of sync
(D) having blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams reduced landings to less ---Shad migrations were blocked by the hurdles and not the shads themselves

(E) Having blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams had reduced landings to an amount lower –amount lower is out of sync

_________________

Can you solve at least some SC questions without delving into the initial statement?

Narendran 98845 44509

Kudos [?]: 8168 [11], given: 364

2 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 10

Kudos [?]: 5 [2], given: 3

Re: Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Aug 2015, 03:17
2
This post received
KUDOS
The sequence of events here is

First there was 1900....then culverts were built and reduced the amount to 4 million ----then came 1920.

So the mid event - "reduction" happened before 1920.. so it should be " had reduced"

So ans is B

I too chose the wrong ans the first time.

Cheers

Kudos [?]: 5 [2], given: 3

Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 13 Jul 2015
Posts: 42

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 36

Location: Singapore
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39
WE: Operations (Retail)
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Sep 2015, 00:20
daagh wrote:
There is an adage which says that be wary of the obvious. The first obvious is to say that when there was an earlier event in 1990, a later event as in 1920 should never be assigned a past perfect. Second, obvious is that use of less is inappropriate because 17 million pounds is countable. Therefore, a lower amount should be the right one. Both these assumptions are wrong as per the custom of American English, including GMAT.
It is customary to use a past perfect for a later event, when there is a time reference such as 1920. Don’t we say that I started my GMAT preparation in 2005 and by 2015, I had completed it. As there are exceptions to every rule, the use of past perfect is taken for granted in such rare cases.
17 million pounds is taken as a mass quantity rather than as countable individual pounds. Therefore the use of less is justified
By this token of reasoning, B is an acceptable answer.


(A) that have blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams have
reduced landings to less that have blocked is a wrong tense for an event that was completed in the past

(B) That blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less ------ Correct
(C) that blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams reduced landings to a lower amount ----- 'lower' is out of sync
(D) having blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams reduced landings to less ---Shad migrations were blocked by the hurdles and not the shads themselves

(E) Having blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams had reduced landings to an amount lower –amount lower is out of sync


Daagh, I really need your help on this one. My GMAT centre tells me that for 2 sequential events, the 1st event is in past perfect, and the second in simple past. The example it gave is: "He had never seen (1st event) a GMAT question before he actually took (later event) the exam".

Next question, I still don't understand the sequence of events happening here. Is it: 17mill landings --> some guys build stuff --> these stuff block shad migration + they guys overfish --> therefore landings are reduced??

Do hope you see this, this question is driving me nuts lol

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 36

4 KUDOS received
Retired Moderator
User avatar
P
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4311

Kudos [?]: 8168 [4], given: 364

Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Sep 2015, 04:30
4
This post received
KUDOS
SamulWitwicky
Hi

Point 1.
We are guided by a similar official example from GMATPREP as given below , which has given us the clue why such structures are accepted by GMAT. This is really different from normal thinking and we have to accept it as such.

Quote:
Less than 35 years after the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, their descendants, popularly known as killer bees, had migrated as far north as southern Texas.

A) Less than 35 years after the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil,

B) In less than 35 years since releasing African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil,

C) In less than the 35 years since African honeybees had been released outside Sao Paulo, Brazil,

D) It took less than 35 years from the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, when

E) It took less than the 35 years after the time that African honeybees were released outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, and then

After seeing that, please go through the explanation by Ron, one of the most noted personalities of GMAT SC in the link given
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... t1864.html

Point 2.
Quote:
Next question, I still don't understand the sequence of events happening here. Is it: 17mill landings --> some guys build stuff --> these stuff block shad migration + they guys overfish --> therefore landings are reduced??


Quote:
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than seventeen million pounds of shad in a single year, but by 1920, over-fishing and the proliferation of milldams and culverts that have blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less than four million pounds.

(A) that have blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less
(B) that blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less
(C) that blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams reduced landings to a lower amount
(D) having blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams reduced landings to less
(E) having blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams had reduced landings to an amount lower


For an understanding of the of the sequence, you may need to know a little bit about the life-cycle of the shad. Adult shads are sea –living; but the young ones cannot tolerate sea water. So the adults reach the seashores and then swim up the rivers that join the bay from the land. After travelling a good length, they spawn in fresh waters; they adults may either die away immediately after spawning or may return to the sea to pick up strength and re-enter rivers for spawning again.

The young ones then hatch in the river waters and stay there for six months or so, before they return to the sea via the same sea shore from where the mother entered the river. Now overfishing can occur in the following areas. 1. of the adults at the sea-shore area before entering the rivers. 2. in the rivers while they swim up for spawning, or when the growing young ones are trying to return to the sea. Meantime the inland guys are building dams and culverts for agriculture and energy production.The building of dams and culverts blocks the free flow of water as well as the swim of both the adults upstream and the young ones downstream. The young ones, if they do not reach seawaters with in a given time, will die out. The point is that all the impediments progressively have brought down the population of fish in the bay area, in a span of 20 years from 17mn in 1900 to barely 4 mn in 1920. Landings here imply the overall population.

Samuel! This is as far as I know of this episode from my readings. I may be wrong too.
_________________

Can you solve at least some SC questions without delving into the initial statement?

Narendran 98845 44509

Kudos [?]: 8168 [4], given: 364

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 13 Jul 2015
Posts: 42

Kudos [?]: 10 [1], given: 36

Location: Singapore
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39
WE: Operations (Retail)
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Sep 2015, 21:43
1
This post received
KUDOS
daagh wrote:
SamulWitwicky
Hi

Point 1.
We are guided by a similar official example from GMATPREP as given below , which has given us the clue why such structures are accepted by GMAT. This is really different from normal thinking and we have to accept it as such.

For an understanding of the of the sequence, you may need to know a little bit about the life-cycle of the shad. Adult shads are sea –living; but the young ones cannot tolerate sea water. So the adults reach the seashores and then swim up the rivers that join the bay from the land. After travelling a good length, they spawn in fresh waters; they adults may either die away immediately after spawning or may return to the sea to pick up strength and re-enter rivers for spawning again.

The young ones then hatch in the river waters and stay there for six months or so, before they return to the sea via the same sea shore from where the mother entered the river. Now overfishing can occur in the following areas. 1. of the adults at the sea-shore area before entering the rivers. 2. in the rivers while they swim up for spawning, or when the growing young ones are trying to return to the sea. Meantime the inland guys are building dams and culverts for agriculture and energy production.The building of dams and culverts blocks the free flow of water as well as the swim of both the adults upstream and the young ones downstream. The young ones, if they do not reach seawaters with in a given time, will die out. The point is that all the impediments progressively have brought down the population of fish in the bay area, in a span of 20 years from 17mn in 1900 to barely 4 mn in 1920. Landings here imply the overall population.

Samuel! This is as far as I know of this episode from my readings. I may be wrong too.


Hey thanks a lot Daagh. And thanks a lot for the link. Took me awhile to get it, but I think I do now. It's hard to put my thoughts into words but i'll try. So basically, this fisherman question, like the honeybee question, is merely stating facts ("narration" as Ron called it) - that at 1900, this was the scenario, then fastforward 20 years later, 1st event (i.e. overfishing +building) happened and resulted in another scenario. Same for the honeybee, after their release, then the first event (i.e. migration) happened. Therefore, this is the exception to the past perfect>>past tense rule.

VS

2 explicit actions for e.g. this question on buildings and earthquakes --> 37-og-vr-some-buildings-that-were-destroyed-and-heavily-56040.html

buildings had to be FIRST constructed badly, then SECOND, be destroyed by an earthquake. This is where the rule is essential in demonstrating the sequence of events.

what do you think of my reasoning?

Kudos [?]: 10 [1], given: 36

1 KUDOS received
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Status: Getting strong now, I'm so strong now!!!
Affiliations: National Institute of Technology, Durgapur
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Posts: 561

Kudos [?]: 711 [1], given: 80

Location: India
GPA: 3.32
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Mar 2016, 23:43
1
This post received
KUDOS
https://e-gmat.com/blogs/page/2/

this is useful
_________________

Regards,

S

Consider +1 KUDOS if you find this post useful

Kudos [?]: 711 [1], given: 80

4 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
S
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 742

Kudos [?]: 322 [4], given: 12

Location: Bangalore, India
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Mar 2016, 04:08
4
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
SamuelWitwicky wrote:
So basically, this fisherman question, like the honeybee question, is merely stating facts ("narration" as Ron called it) - that at 1900, this was the scenario, then fastforward 20 years later, 1st event (i.e. overfishing +building) happened and resulted in another scenario. Same for the honeybee, after their release, then the first event (i.e. migration) happened. Therefore, this is the exception to the past perfect>>past tense rule.

Yes, while daagh has already explained it with an official example, another GMATPrep sentence that comes to mind:

In 1981 children in the United States spent an average of slightly less than two and a half hours a week doing household chores; by 1997 that figure had grown to nearly
six hours a week
.

There are actually 3 events that this sentence talks about:

(a) children in the United States spent an average of slightly less than two and a half hours a week doing household chores (1981)

(b) 16 years passing since then (between 1981 and 1997)

(c) But, before those 16 years passed (within those years, as indicated by the words by 1997), that figure (two and a half hours a week doing household chores) went up to 6 hours.

However, while (b) and (c) both happened in the past, (c) happened before (b) and hence, (c) should be in past perfect (in this case: had grown). In fact, this is a classical usage of Past Perfect.

Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses this concept of Past perfect tense, its application and examples in significant detail. In the book, we have provided a similar example:

In 2007, a typical web user spent less than 4 hours a month on Facebook; by 2011, that figure had gone up to 8 hours.

If someone is interested, PM me your email-id, I can mail the corresponding section of the book.
_________________

Thanks,
Ashish (GMAT Faculty @ EducationAisle)
http://www.EducationAisle.com

Sentence Correction Nirvana available at Amazon.in and Flipkart

Now! Preview the entire Grammar Section of Sentence Correction Nirvana at pothi.com

Kudos [?]: 322 [4], given: 12

VP
VP
avatar
S
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 1395

Kudos [?]: 168 [0], given: 916

Re: Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jun 2016, 02:15
daagh wrote:
There is an adage which says that be wary of the obvious. The first obvious is to say that when there was an earlier event in 1990, a later event as in 1920 should never be assigned a past perfect. Second, obvious is that use of less is inappropriate because 17 million pounds is countable. Therefore, a lower amount should be the right one. Both these assumptions are wrong as per the custom of American English, including GMAT.
It is customary to use a past perfect for a later event, when there is a time reference such as 1920. Don’t we say that I started my GMAT preparation in 2005 and by 2015, I had completed it. As there are exceptions to every rule, the use of past perfect is taken for granted in such rare cases.
17 million pounds is taken as a mass quantity rather than as countable individual pounds. Therefore the use of less is justified
By this token of reasoning, B is an acceptable answer.


(A) that have blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams have
reduced landings to less that have blocked is a wrong tense for an event that was completed in the past

(B) That blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less ------ Correct
(C) that blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams reduced landings to a lower amount ----- 'lower' is out of sync
(D) having blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams reduced landings to less ---Shad migrations were blocked by the hurdles and not the shads themselves

(E) Having blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams had reduced landings to an amount lower –amount lower is out of sync



have blocked in A is good.
I think.
in sequence problem, we need to be careful with the verb tense in the clause which modify a noun because the tense in this clause can be more flexible and can be independent from tense in surrounding clause.
it is logic to think that the blockage happenen in the past and continue until now.
the serious problem with A is "blocke shad migrations " . this is not idiomatic.

similarly, in C, "blocked" in past simple is no problem. but the problem here is "lower amount". an amount can not be low, so, can not be lower. an amount can be less or lighter. . C is wrong

had reduced in B is correct because we have "by 1990" is the mark before which "reduce" happen. we need to find two action for a sequence and we find them already. we dont care other verb tense.
_________________

visit my facebook to help me.
on facebook, my name is: thang thang thang

Kudos [?]: 168 [0], given: 916

VP
VP
avatar
S
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 1395

Kudos [?]: 168 [0], given: 916

Re: Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jun 2016, 02:24
we should properly understand sequence in which had dond is used.
had done is used to show an action happening before a past mark/action. had done is not used to show an action which have a marktime even this action happen before another action.

I learned english in 2000 and I learned gmat in 2002

learned english is not used in past perfect because it go with 2000 already.

there is a sc problem which tests this point "she joined army and injured, " pls google to find.
_________________

visit my facebook to help me.
on facebook, my name is: thang thang thang

Kudos [?]: 168 [0], given: 916

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 05 Feb 2016
Posts: 13

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 583

Re: Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jun 2016, 09:39
In over-fishing and the proliferation of milldams and culverts that blocked shad migration
That refers to the preceding noun (culverts here), but it is not the culverts that blocked shad migration.
'over fishing and proliferation ' overall had an effect that blocked the migration. So ing+verb should be used to refer to the effect of the preceding statement.

Please correct me in this concept.

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 583

2 KUDOS received
Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
Posts: 903

Kudos [?]: 433 [2], given: 69

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GPA: 3.98
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jun 2016, 12:19
2
This post received
KUDOS
ishajindal wrote:
In over-fishing and the proliferation of milldams and culverts that blocked shad migration
That refers to the preceding noun (culverts here), but it is not the culverts that blocked shad migration.
'over fishing and proliferation ' overall had an effect that blocked the migration. So ing+verb should be used to refer to the effect of the preceding statement.

Please correct me in this concept.


Hi ishajindal,

I hope my explanation will be of help to you.

Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than seventeen million pounds of shad in a single year, but by 1920, over-fishing and the proliferation of milldams and culverts that have blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less than four million pounds.

(A) that have blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less
(B) that blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less
(C) that blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams reduced landings to a lower amount
(D) having blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams reduced landings to less
(E) having blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams had reduced landings to an amount lower

Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than seventeen million pounds of shad in a single year is a complete sentence by itself.

Looking at the next sentence, we realize that the contrast is mentioned. The sentence says that by year 1920, over-fishing and the proliferation of mill dams and culverts landings were already reduced to less than four million pounds. And, milldams and culverts blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams.

To answer your question,-ing form preceded by ',' shows results or additional information. But, -ing form not preceded by ',' modifies the closest noun. That is why choice D and E are wrong.

(A) that have blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less. 'have' represents past particple, but the event ended in past. Hence, past participle is not required.
(B) that blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less. Correct option. 'had' is correctly used to show that the even happened already before 1920
(C) that blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams reduced landings to a lower amount. 'lower amount' is not right.
_________________

I welcome critical analysis of my post!! That will help me reach 700+

Kudos [?]: 433 [2], given: 69

Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2016
Posts: 27

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 17

GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V31
GMAT 2: 770 Q51 V42
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Sep 2016, 08:59
Best thing about Official problems is that wrong answer is wrong in zillion aspects. Here is how we can eliminate 4/5 answers without going into "past perfect" conundrum.

A: their ambiguously refers to migrations
B:
C: amout of fish, hence lower is inappropriate
D: Comma before having is missing
E: their ambiguously refers to migrations

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 17

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 18 Sep 2015
Posts: 109

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 612

GMAT 1: 610 Q43 V31
GMAT 2: 610 Q47 V27
GMAT 3: 650 Q48 V31
GMAT 4: 700 Q49 V35
WE: Project Management (Health Care)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Oct 2016, 04:18
JarvisR wrote:
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than seventeen million pounds of shad in a single year, but by 1920, over-fishing and the proliferation of milldams and culverts that have blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less than four million pounds.

(A) that have blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less
(B) that blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less
(C) that blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams reduced landings to a lower amount
(D) having blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams reduced landings to less
(E) having blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams had reduced landings to an amount lower


Lets break down the sentence:
- Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than seventeen million pounds of shad in a single year, but
- by 1920, [over-fishing and the proliferation of milldams and culverts that have blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams] had reduced landings to less than four million pounds.
-> options C & D are out.

- in this sentence we have 2 independent clauses, separated with "but"
- the 2nd sentence use the word "by" which is a clear indication for past perfect.
- the 2nd sentence have a phrase (with a modifier to one of its elements) - which functions as a singular subject.
- It will be a better idea to start from the inside of that phrase ( marked with "["..."]" ).

[over-fishing] and [the proliferation of (milldams) and (culverts) that have blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams]

- the 2 elements of the parallelism are shown above.
- now lets look on the next phrase+modifier:
"the proliferation of (milldams) and (culverts) that have blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams"
* that modifies "milldams" & "culverts".
* the tense used is present perfect. Now using this tense means that "milldams" & "culverts" are still blocking the shad migration - which does not make any sense, since it is clear from that context that this action has been completed.
-> option A is out.

We are left with: B and E.

- the use of having is not correct. Having is used to emphasis actions, for example: "having completed his homework, Dan went to a friend'. the emphasis is on the fact that Dan finished his homework and only then continued to the 2nd action.

In addition the "Shad migrations" does not have a spawning stream - this makes not sense.
=>E is out.

We are left with B.

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 612

Expert Post
Verbal Expert
User avatar
S
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3197

Kudos [?]: 3506 [0], given: 22

Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Dec 2016, 06:19
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
rakaisraka wrote:
Hi Sayantan,
Can you check this question :http://gmatclub.com/forum/around-1900-fishermen-in-the-chesapeake-203779.html#p1562149

can you please explain the use of Having?

In this question what having is modifying- to hurdles or to the subject - overfishing and prolifiration. Always confused on the use of having.
Thanks.

Also, how to use the request expert reply?I wanted to pt question before requesting but it does not give option of asking question.


"Having + past participle" is called a perfect participle - it is used to depict an action that has been completed.

Having done my homework, I went out to play.

===============

Post your query in the thread as usual and then click on the "request expert reply" button.

Kudos [?]: 3506 [0], given: 22

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 25 Feb 2014
Posts: 14

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 2

Re: Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Dec 2016, 06:36
JarvisR wrote:
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than seventeen million pounds of shad in a single year, but by 1920, over-fishing and the proliferation of milldams and culverts that have blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less than four million pounds.

(A) that have blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less
(B) that blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less
(C) that blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams reduced landings to a lower amount
(D) having blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams reduced landings to less
(E) having blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams had reduced landings to an amount lower


B is the correct answer. Here is my explanation:

A.Their cannot refer to shad as "shad" has been used as an adjective. Pronoun can only refer back to noun

B.correct
C.landings is countable so amount cannot be used
D.when we use By 1920, we want to stress on the time so "had" is preferred.
E.landings is countable so amount cannot be used

_________________

Please give Kudos if u find it helpful!!!!

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 2

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 02 Nov 2013
Posts: 96

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 10

Location: India
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Dec 2016, 09:19
Taken 1 minute:29sec to solve this,
A: event is happened in past, "have" not required, it is a wrong tense. Eliminate.
B: CORRECT. Tense is correct and less matches with amount.
C: "Amount' does not match with "four million pounds". Eliminate.
D: having blocked - Not correct
E: Same as D and C. Eliminate.

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 10

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 26 Nov 2016
Posts: 11

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 2

Location: Australia
Concentration: Strategy, International Business
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V45
GPA: 4
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Dec 2016, 15:17
I understand why the past perfect "had reduced" is correct here - but how can the simple past tense "blocked" in the relative clause be correct? Doesn't this imply that the sequence of events is: "landings are reduced" followed by "the culverts blocked shad migrations"? But how is this logical? First the migrations are blocked by the culverts and subsequently (or perhaps at the same time) landings are reduced, so the verb tense for "blocked" should either be the same as "reduced" or further in the past then "reduced". Shouldn't the correct use of verb tenses be:
"...the proliferation of milldams and culverts that HAD BLOCKED shad migrations up their spawning streams HAD REDUCED landings to less than four million pounds"

?

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 2

Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake   [#permalink] 06 Dec 2016, 15:17

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 33 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.