Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 08:52 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 08:52
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   4   5   6 
605-655 Level|   Idioms/Diction/Redundancy|   Verb Tense/Form|                        
User avatar
ryanstarr
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Sep 2021
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 55
Own Kudos:
127
 [1]
Given Kudos: 12
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V49
GMAT 2: 790 Q51 V50 (Online)
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 790 Q51 V50 (Online)
Posts: 55
Kudos: 127
 [1]
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 15 Oct 2022, 23:55
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TheUltimateWinner
GMATNinja
elizebethsunny
GMATNinja

Can you please explain how "that" can be used to refer to "over-fishing and the proliferation of milldams and culverts"?
Context! As soon as I see "that" as a modifier, the first thing I'll do is check out the associated verb to see if it offers any insight about whether "that" is describing a singular or plural noun. Here, I have "blocked," so that's not too helpful -- I could write "it blocked" or "they blocked."

Next, I'll use the logic of the modifier itself. Here, we have "that blocked shad from migrating." Okay, now my eyes shift to the left, in search of a noun or noun phrase that might have blocked these poor shad.

Could the mildams and culverts have done it? Sure. Could it have been the "proliferation" of these mildams and culverts? Yep. What's important is that it makes perfect sense for mildams and culverts to block fish. No need to waste any energy splitting hairs here -- there's a noun or noun phrase that could be modified logically by "that," so I know it's not a concrete error, and I can move on to other issues. Simple as that.

I hope that helps!

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
GMATNinja
if the ''proliferation'' itself can block then the ''over-fishing'' can also block shad as ''proliferation'' and ''over-fishing'' have been added by the word 'and', right?
Show more

Grammatically, yes: that can refer to two or more nouns joined by an and, and sometimes this is a cause of genuine ambiguity. However, relative pronouns such as that and which are not usually held under so much scrutiny, even by the GMAT. That's because the GMAT usually makes an issue of ambiguity only when the meaning is unclear or the grammar and meaning clash in some way. In this case, that shows up closest to culverts, then to milldams and culverts, then to the proliferation of milldams and culverts, and finally to over-fishing and the proliferation of milldams and culverts. As long as anything in this chain of nouns is a logical target for the modifier that starts with that, the GMAT is pretty happy, and generally the closer the better. I don't think over-fishing really qualifies here (as it wouldn't have blocked the shad from migrating), and I don't even particularly like the putative application of that to proliferation, as it makes the most logical sense for the milldams and culverts to be doing the blocking. And since these nouns also happen to be the closest to that, the GMAT will consider this a case in which the meaning and grammar don't disagree or cause confusion.

Tl;dr the that has the grammatical power to modify any of the four nouns immediately preceding it, the meaning of the that modifier makes it clear that the target should be milldams and culverts, and the GMAT won't typically change something if meaning and grammar don't clash.
avatar
TheUltimateWinner
avatar
Schools: Harvard '24 Judge '23 LBS '24 McCombs '24 Mendoza Tepper '24 Ross '24 Cox Marshall '24 Fisher Kelley '24 Jones McDonough '24 Owen '24 Terry BU Simon '24 Katz GWU Mason Babson Gabelli Foster '24 Goizueta '24 Scheller Stern '23 CBS '23 Booth '23 Haas '25 Wharton '25 Stanford '26 Johnson'23 Fuqua '23 Kellogg '23 Kenan-Flagler'23 INSEAD Aug 22 intake Olin '23 Said '23 Sloan '23 Carey Arizona "22 Yale '23 UC Davis Madison '23 Anderson '23 Carroll Carlson '23 Darden '23
Posts: 2,489
Kudos: 2,387
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 16 Oct 2022, 01:07
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ryanstarr
TheUltimateWinner

if the ''proliferation'' itself can block then the ''over-fishing'' can also block shad as ''proliferation'' and ''over-fishing'' have been added by the word 'and', right?

Grammatically, yes: that can refer to two or more nouns joined by an and, and sometimes this is a cause of genuine ambiguity. However, relative pronouns such as that and which are not usually held under so much scrutiny, even by the GMAT. That's because the GMAT usually makes an issue of ambiguity only when the meaning is unclear or the grammar and meaning clash in some way. In this case, that shows up closest to culverts, then to milldams and culverts, then to the proliferation of milldams and culverts, and finally to over-fishing and the proliferation of milldams and culverts. As long as anything in this chain of nouns is a logical target for the modifier that starts with that, the GMAT is pretty happy, and generally the closer the better. I don't think over-fishing really qualifies here (as it wouldn't have blocked the shad from migrating), and I don't even particularly like the putative application of that to proliferation, as it makes the most logical sense for the milldams and culverts to be doing the blocking. And since these nouns also happen to be the closest to that, the GMAT will consider this a case in which the meaning and grammar don't disagree or cause confusion.

Tl;dr the that has the grammatical power to modify any of the four nouns immediately preceding it, the meaning of the that modifier makes it clear that the target should be milldams and culverts, and the GMAT won't typically change something if meaning and grammar don't clash.
Show more
I thought so. The milldams and culverts does it. If proliferation modifies, then over-fishing also modifies because they are added by AND.
Thanks ryanstarr for the nice explanation.
User avatar
abhishekmayank
User avatar
Joined: 26 Apr 2016
Last visit: 28 Jan 2024
Posts: 201
Own Kudos:
59
Given Kudos: 6
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V33
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V33
Posts: 201
Kudos: 59
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 14 Dec 2022, 23:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
What is the sequence of event - Blocking --> Reduction

Should not "Blocking" be in past perfect and "Reduction" in past ?
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
3,579
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 15 Dec 2022, 02:25
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
abhishekmayank
What is the sequence of event - Blocking --> Reduction

Should not "Blocking" be in past perfect and "Reduction" in past ?
Show more
You might want to go thru this post.
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,108
Own Kudos:
32,886
Given Kudos: 700
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,108
Kudos: 32,886
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 15 Dec 2022, 05:02
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
abhishekmayank
What is the sequence of event - Blocking --> Reduction

Should not "Blocking" be in past perfect and "Reduction" in past ?
Show more

Hey abhishekmayank

Happy to help!


The fact that "reduced" is in the past perfect "had reduced" has got nothing to do with the tense of the verb "blocked". In fact, as Shraddha explains in this response, the past perfect tense 'had reduced' is because of the phrase "by 1920".


The verbs "reduced" and "blocked" are unrelated events. The verb "blocked" has been used to describe the milldams and culverts that proliferated in the early 1900s. Since this verb is part of a noun modifier clause, it has no relation with the main verb 'reduced' whatsoever. In fact, it's the adverb phrase "by 1920" that modifies the main verb "reduced" and so requires "reduced" to be in the past perfect tense.

I hope this helps.

Happy Learning!

Abhishek
User avatar
bullishdutta
User avatar
Joined: 03 Aug 2019
Last visit: 29 Jul 2024
Posts: 8
Given Kudos: 9
Posts: 8
Kudos: 0
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 25 Dec 2022, 05:06
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Doesn't "their" refer to a plural antecedent? In option B, could someone explain how we can use "their" to refer to shad (which i assumed would take a singular pronoun)?
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
3,579
 [1]
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
 [1]
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 25 Dec 2022, 06:04
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
bullishdutta
Doesn't "their" refer to a plural antecedent? In option B, could someone explain how we can use "their" to refer to shad (which i assumed would take a singular pronoun)?
Show more
It seems that the plural of shad is also shad :)

But one doesn't really need to know this, since all options use their to refer to shad.
User avatar
prachisaraf
User avatar
Joined: 03 Jan 2023
Last visit: 31 Jul 2023
Posts: 28
Own Kudos:
4
Given Kudos: 299
Posts: 28
Kudos: 4
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 16 Apr 2023, 09:28
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ExpertsGlobal5
Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-
JarvisR
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

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

A: This answer choice incorrectly uses the present perfect tense verb "have blocked" to refer to an action that concluded in the past; please remember, the simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past, and the present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present. Further, Option A suffers from pronoun ambiguity, as the pronoun "their" lacks a logical referent. Additionally, Option A uses the needlessly indirect phrase "shad migrations up their spawning streams", leading to awkwardness.

B: Correct. This answer choice correctly uses the simple past tense verb "blocked" to refer to an action that concluded in the past. Further, Option B correctly uses the past perfect tense verb "had reduced" to refer to the earlier of two actions that concluded in the past - over-fishing and the proliferation of milldams and culverts reducing landings and the year 1920 beginning. Additionally, Option B avoids the pronoun error seen in Options A and E, as it provides an appropriate referent - "shad" - for the pronoun "their". Besides, Option B is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

C: This answer choice incorrectly uses the simple past tense verb "reduced" to refer to the earlier of two actions that concluded in the past - over-fishing and the proliferation of milldams and culverts reducing landings and the year 1920 beginning; please remember, the past perfect tense (marked by the use of helping verb "had") is used when a sentence contains two actions in the past; the helping verb "had" is used with the action in the "greater past", and the simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past. Further, Option C uses the needlessly wordy phrase "to a lower amount", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

D: This answer choice incorrectly uses the past perfect participle phrase "having blocked" to refer to an action that concluded in the past; please remember, the simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past. Further, Option D incorrectly uses the simple past tense verb "reduced" to refer to the earlier of two actions that concluded in the past - over-fishing and the proliferation of milldams and culverts reducing landings and the year 1920 beginning; please remember, the past perfect tense (marked by the use of helping verb "had") is used when a sentence contains two actions in the past; the helping verb "had" is used with the action in the "greater past", and the simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past.

E: This answer choice incorrectly uses the past perfect participle phrase "having blocked" to refer to an action that concluded in the past; please remember, the simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past. Further, Option E suffers from pronoun ambiguity, as the pronoun "their" lacks a logical referent. Additionally, Option E uses the needlessly indirect phrases "shad migrations up their spawning streams" and "to an amount lower", leading to awkwardness.

Hence, B is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Simple Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



To understand the concept of "Past Perfect Tense" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



To understand the concept of "Present Perfect Tense" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team
Show more


How is "reduced landings" earlier of the two actions ? Firstly, this is an event after 1900 (where 'simple past' is used). Further, the 'blocked shads' reduced the landings, so clearly it happened the last. Can someone please clarify ?
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,784
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,784
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 03 May 2023, 10:18
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
prachisaraf
How is "reduced landings" earlier of the two actions ? Firstly, this is an event after 1900 (where 'simple past' is used). Further, the 'blocked shads' reduced the landings, so clearly it happened the last. Can someone please clarify ?
Show more
The "reducing" happened before 1920 began, as explained in this post: https://gmatclub.com/forum/around-1900- ... l#p2923700. Check it out, and let us know if you still have questions!
User avatar
poddarritika98
User avatar
Joined: 02 Apr 2023
Last visit: 07 Jan 2025
Posts: 18
Own Kudos:
150
Given Kudos: 13
Posts: 18
Kudos: 150
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 28 Sep 2023, 11:32
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
How do we distinguish when a particular noun is countable or uncountable? Generally, shads are countable. In this question, it is not.
User avatar
DmitryFarber
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Last visit: 08 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,020
Own Kudos:
8,563
Given Kudos: 57
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 745 Q86 V90 DI85
Posts: 3,020
Kudos: 8,563
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 28 Sep 2023, 12:16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
poddarritika98


Plurals like fish are always countable. But in this case, "less than" refers to the weight of the landing, not the fish or the pounds themselves.
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,994
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,994
 [1]
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 29 Sep 2023, 02:23
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
poddarritika98
How do we distinguish when a particular noun is countable or uncountable? Generally, shads are countable. In this question, it is not.
Show more


When comparing mass, we use 'less than.' 4kgs is less than 5 kgs.
So 'had reduced landings to less than 4 million pounds' means the mass could have been say 3 million pounds (less than 4 million pounds)

Also note, when comparing figures such as 3 < 4 we use 'less than.'
We say '3 is less than 4' and that is correct.
User avatar
Gigi0707
User avatar
Joined: 22 Sep 2019
Last visit: 19 Feb 2024
Posts: 2
Given Kudos: 46
Posts: 2
Kudos: 0
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 01 Oct 2023, 05:18
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
...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.

isn't over-fishing and the proliferation of M & C blocking shad migrations the cause, and had reduced landings the result of it? I mean, over fishing... should precede(be the cause of) the reduction of the amount of the landings, and that's why 'had reduced' is quite awkward... Plz help :(
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,994
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,994
 [1]
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 02 Oct 2023, 04:04
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Gigi0707
...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.

isn't over-fishing and the proliferation of M & C blocking shad migrations the cause, and had reduced landings the result of it? I mean, over fishing... should precede(be the cause of) the reduction of the amount of the landings, and that's why 'had reduced' is quite awkward... Plz help :(
Show more

We can't learn a language, especially English, using just rules.

We know we can use past perfect for an action before a particular time in the past.

I had never eaten sushi before last Friday.
Point of time in the past - last Friday
An action before that - eaten sushi
Past perfect is correctly used.

Similar is this sentence: By 1920, A and B had reduced landings to less than 4 million pounds.

Check this post on past perfect: https://anaprep.com/sentence-correction ... ast-tense/


In our original sentence, two independent clauses are joined together by 'but' but they are giving two different thoughts.

- Around 1900s, X landed more than 17 million pounds. (Simple past about a point in the past)
- By 1920, A and B had reduced landings to less than 4 million pounds. (past perfect to talk about something before a point in the past)

These two are joined together but they do not give a sequence - they give a comparison of two different times in the past.

Around 1900s, X landed more than 17 million pounds, but by 1920, A and B had reduced landings to less than 4 million pounds.

This usage is acceptable and anyone who reads regularly will not give it a second glance.

Gigi0707 prachisaraf

Also check out these SC videos:
https://youtu.be/P9FMzbopfik
https://youtu.be/5JWjr6qQAfY
avatar
TheUltimateWinner
avatar
Schools: Harvard '24 Judge '23 LBS '24 McCombs '24 Mendoza Tepper '24 Ross '24 Cox Marshall '24 Fisher Kelley '24 Jones McDonough '24 Owen '24 Terry BU Simon '24 Katz GWU Mason Babson Gabelli Foster '24 Goizueta '24 Scheller Stern '23 CBS '23 Booth '23 Haas '25 Wharton '25 Stanford '26 Johnson'23 Fuqua '23 Kellogg '23 Kenan-Flagler'23 INSEAD Aug 22 intake Olin '23 Said '23 Sloan '23 Carey Arizona "22 Yale '23 UC Davis Madison '23 Anderson '23 Carroll Carlson '23 Darden '23
Posts: 2,489
Kudos: 2,387
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 07 Oct 2023, 12:56
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
DmitryFarber
poddarritika98


Plurals like fish are always countable. But in this case, "less than" refers to the weight of the landing, not the fish or the pounds themselves.
Show more
..... So, we are not talking about 'landings' itself; we are talking about 'weight of the landings', right?
Thanks__
   1   2   3   4   5   6 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts