Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 01:37 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 01:37
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
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
3,579
 [2]
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
 [2]
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 21 Apr 2020, 08:03
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AyeeshaJ
How can use a plural pronoun 'their' for singular 'Shad'?
Show more
Apparently shad or shads can both be used as plural.

But we don't really need to know this for this question, since all the five answer choices consistently use their. So, this is not a split.
avatar
mansi1997
avatar
Joined: 29 Aug 2018
Last visit: 04 Mar 2022
Posts: 14
Given Kudos: 134
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
Posts: 14
Kudos: 0
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 02 May 2020, 08:36
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I am still not able to understand why option D is incorrect, can someone explain in detail? Thankyou!
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
3,579
 [2]
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
 [2]
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 02 May 2020, 08:54
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mansi1999
I am still not able to understand why option D is incorrect, can someone explain in detail? Thankyou!
Show more
Hi Mansi, the reason why option D is incorrect because it uses simple past (reduced), while it should have used past perfect (had reduced).

The crux of Past Perfect is:

Past perfect expresses the scenario that an event happened at some point before another event in the past, or at some point before another time in the past.

Here, the sentence under consideration is:

by 1920, over-fishing and the proliferation of milldams and culverts had reduced landings to less than four million pounds.

The event of reduction of landings to less than four million pounds, happened at some point before another time (in this case, 1920) in the past. Hence, past perfect (had been) is the appropriate usage here.

So basically, this particular sentence represents the following scenario:

Past perfect is used to depict an event that has happened within some time-frame before time in the past

Reproducing a similar example given in our book:

Peter started his business in 2012; by 2014, he had established himself well in the business.

Explanation: This sentence is in past perfect (had established). If the sentence was by 2014, Peter had established himself well in the business, the time frame of reference for the event (Peter getting well-established in the business) would basically start in the past (in this case, year 2014) and would continue infinitely into the past. However, the sentence under consideration also states: Peter started his business in 2012. By stating this, the sentence is restricting the time frame that it is referring to in the past (in this case, until year 2012).

You can watch our video on Past Perfect. Especially watch out for Usage -2 explained in the video.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses this scenario of Past Perfect. Have attached the corresponding section of the book, for your reference.
Attachments

Past Perfect.pdf [31.44 KiB]
Downloaded 107 times

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 Updated on: 17 Sep 2020, 05:08
Originally posted by TheUltimateWinner on 22 May 2020, 18:51.
Last edited by TheUltimateWinner on 17 Sep 2020, 05:08, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
payalkhndlwl
GMATNinja can you pls explain the diff between B&D?
The first decision point is "that" vs "having." When we're using a modifier to specify a noun, or differentiate that noun from a larger group, we'd use "that." For example:

    "The dog that ate Dana's homework is kind of a jerk."

In this case, there could be multiple dogs, and I'm differentiating between the dog that ate Dana's homework and other dogs with better etiquette.

I'm not sure there's ever a time when "having" would be mandatory, but if we were to use it as a modifier, we'd do so to add incidental information:

    "The dog, having eaten Dana's homework, is no longer hungry."

Notice that in this case, "having eaten Dana's homework" is set off by commas to communicate that this information isn't crucial. There's only one dog, and this dog happened to have eaten Dana's homework. (Notice also that the phrase beginning with "having + verb" describes an action that happened before the other action in the sentence.)

In this question, we're talking specifically about the "milldams sand culverts that blocked shad" as opposed to milldams and culverts, in general. And while comma usage is rarely important, notice also that "having" isn't set off by commas. Therefore we'd prefer "that" to "having." That's one reason to pick (B).

A second decision point is the verb tense, "had reduced" vs. "reduced." Any time we have the construction "By + YEAR IN PAST," and we wish to communicate that the action in question happened before this year, we'd use "had." In this case, the sentence includes the phrase "by 1920," and the reduction seems to have happened before 1920, so "had reduced" is correct, and (B) is again our champion.

I hope that helps!
Show more
GMATNinja
Thanks for the nice explanation. +1.
Could you discuss the meaning of the following 3 versions, please? Always expecting wonderful explanation from you :)
    "The dog, having eaten Dana's homework, is no longer hungry."
    "The dog having eaten Dana's homework is no longer hungry."
    "The dog, which has eaten Dana's homework, is no longer hungry."

--
Also, it is better to explain the usage of 'shad' in choices A and E. Is 'shad' an adjective in A and E?
Thanks__

GMATNinja,
Hello Sir,
I'm going to tag you again thinking that you missed my query!
User avatar
kornn
User avatar
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Last visit: 18 Dec 2021
Posts: 357
Own Kudos:
93
Given Kudos: 832
Posts: 357
Kudos: 93
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 22 May 2020, 19:58
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Dear GMATGuruNY,

Why can't we use the same reason you posted below to reject choice B. in this question?

Quote:

Generally, the past perfect (had + VERBed) serves to express a past action completed before another past event.
C: Scientists had discovered that there were 17 nearby stars.
Since the usage of the past perfect (had discovered) seems to imply that the discovery of the 17 nearby stars was completed before the 17 nearby stars existed.
This sequence is illogical.
Eliminate C.
Show more
According to choice B. in this question, "blocked" were after "had reduced", conveying illogical meaning.

Also choice A. indicates that "overfishing and the proliferation of milldams and culverts" still exists in present. Since choice A. has logical meaning, choice B. certainly distorts the intended meaning.
Quote:

If the original sentence conveys a meaning that make sense, this meaning should be considered the intended meaning.
Show more
Could you please clarify?
User avatar
GMATGuruNY
User avatar
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 1,344
Own Kudos:
3,796
 [8]
Given Kudos: 9
Schools:Dartmouth College
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,344
Kudos: 3,796
 [8]
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 24 May 2020, 04:33
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
4
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
varotkorn
Dear GMATGuruNY,

Why can't we use the same reason you posted below to reject choice B. in this question?

Quote:

Generally, the past perfect (had + VERBed) serves to express a past action completed before another past event.
C: Scientists had discovered that there were 17 nearby stars.
Since the usage of the past perfect (had discovered) seems to imply that the discovery of the 17 nearby stars was completed before the 17 nearby stars existed.
This sequence is illogical.
Eliminate C.
According to choice B. in this question, "blocked" were after "had reduced", conveying illogical meaning.
Show more

The simple past tense can serve to express a PAST GENERAL TRUTH: something that was true not at a specific moment but was true in general.
Mary found a dirt road that connected the town to the city.
Common sense tells us that the modifier in blue does not refer to a specific moment but to the GENERAL NATURE of the dirt road.
As a general truth, the dirt road CONNECTED the town to the city.

OA: By 1920, milldams that blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams had reduced landings.
Here, the modifier in green does not refer to a specific moment but to the general nature of the milldams.
Question: What KIND of milldams?
Answer: Milldams THAT BLOCKED SHAD FROM MIGRATING.
The past action here -- blocked -- does not refer to a specific moment but expresses a GENERAL TRUTH about the milldams.
The sentence conveys that -- by 1920 -- this type of milldam HAD REDUCED landings.
The purpose of the past perfect (had reduced) is to convey that the act of reducing was completed before the modifier in blue.

In contrast:
there was/were serves to express something that was true NOT in general but only AT A SPECIFIC MOMENT in the past.
There were ten women in the room.
Conveyed meaning:
As a SPECIFIC MOMENT in the past, ten women were in the room.

Illogical: Scientists had discovered that there were 17 nearby stars.
Here, the portion in red refers to a SPECIFIC MOMENT in the past that happened AFTER the past perfect action in blue.
This sequence is illogical, implying a discovery EARLIER IN THE PAST (had discovered) about a moment that happened LATER IN THE PAST (there were stars).
User avatar
kornn
User avatar
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Last visit: 18 Dec 2021
Posts: 357
Own Kudos:
93
Given Kudos: 832
Posts: 357
Kudos: 93
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 24 May 2020, 04:43
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATGuruNY

The simple past tense can serve to express a PAST GENERAL TRUTH: something that was true not at a specific moment but was true in general.
Mary found a dirt road that connected the town to the city.
Common sense tells us that the modifier in blue does not refer to a specific moment but to the GENERAL NATURE of the dirt road.
As a general truth, the dirt road CONNECTED the town to the city.
Show more

Thank you for beautiful response sir GMATGuruNY :)

I'm not quite clear why is present perfect tense in choice A. wrong?

Why is it illogical to say that blocking started in the past and remains in effect today?
"Milldams and culverts" are long-lasting infrastructure. So, IMO, it makes sense to say that the blocking is still relevant til now.
User avatar
GMATGuruNY
User avatar
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 1,344
Own Kudos:
3,796
 [8]
Given Kudos: 9
Schools:Dartmouth College
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,344
Kudos: 3,796
 [8]
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 24 May 2020, 06:23
6
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
varotkorn
Thank you for beautiful response sir GMATGuruNY :)

I'm not quite clear why is present perfect tense in choice A. wrong?.
Show more

The present perfect serves to express a PAST ACTiON THAT AFFECTS THE PRESENT.
If there is no time modifier, the implication is that the action was performed in the RECENT PAST.
Biologists at the local university have discovered a bacterium that can withstand extreme heat.
Here, the present perfect verb in blue serves to express a RECENT discovery that affects our PRESENT knowledge of bacteria.

A: 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.
Here, the intention is to express actions that affected times in the PAST (1900 and 1920).
Thus, there is no justification for the use of present perfect verb in red, which implies an action performed in the RECENT PAST.
A good rule of thumb:
STAY IN ONE TENSE unless a change in tense is required.
Here, the main verbs (landed and had reduced) are past tense verbs.
Since the sentence does not require a change in tense, the verb in red should also be in the past tense.
User avatar
doeadeer
User avatar
Joined: 20 Jul 2020
Last visit: 12 May 2022
Posts: 23
Own Kudos:
6
Given Kudos: 324
Location: India
Posts: 23
Kudos: 6
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 10 Aug 2020, 09:59
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja egmat VeritasPrepBrian I was able to eliminate all but options B and E. Could you please explain why Option E can be eliminated.
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
 [2]
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
 [2]
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 10 Aug 2020, 20:14
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
doeadeer
GMATNinja egmat VeritasPrepBrian I was able to eliminate all but options B and E. Could you please explain why Option E can be eliminated.
Show more
Hi doeadeer,

Although there are other issues in E, a quick way to take E out is to focus on the their.

The correct option uses the word "shad". Option E, however, uses "shad migrations", in which the main word is migrations. This is not particularly good for the their after up, as the their now seems to point to migrations.
User avatar
Hoozan
User avatar
Joined: 28 Sep 2018
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 685
Own Kudos:
701
Given Kudos: 248
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33 (Online)
GMAT 2: 700 Q49 V37
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 2: 700 Q49 V37
Posts: 685
Kudos: 701
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 24 Aug 2020, 05:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo egmat EducationAisle sayantanc2k

Please could I now what does "their" in "their spawning streams" refer to?

The word spawning is generally used to refer to the reproduction of fish, thus "their spawning streams" I guess is used to modify "Shad". But isn't Shad singular"


Usage of "having" in (D) and (E)
E.g Having done his homework, Ron went out to play.

In the above, the "having done his homework" denotes an action that is already taken place and post this action, Ron went out to play.

Keeping the above in mind I wasn't able to understand why "having blocked" in (D) and (E) is incorrect?
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,781
 [2]
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: 7,445
Kudos: 69,781
 [2]
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 29 Sep 2020, 15:06
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TheUltimateWinner
GMATNinja
payalkhndlwl
GMATNinja can you pls explain the diff between B&D?
The first decision point is "that" vs "having." When we're using a modifier to specify a noun, or differentiate that noun from a larger group, we'd use "that." For example:

    "The dog that ate Dana's homework is kind of a jerk."

In this case, there could be multiple dogs, and I'm differentiating between the dog that ate Dana's homework and other dogs with better etiquette.

I'm not sure there's ever a time when "having" would be mandatory, but if we were to use it as a modifier, we'd do so to add incidental information:

    "The dog, having eaten Dana's homework, is no longer hungry."

Notice that in this case, "having eaten Dana's homework" is set off by commas to communicate that this information isn't crucial. There's only one dog, and this dog happened to have eaten Dana's homework. (Notice also that the phrase beginning with "having + verb" describes an action that happened before the other action in the sentence.)

In this question, we're talking specifically about the "milldams sand culverts that blocked shad" as opposed to milldams and culverts, in general. And while comma usage is rarely important, notice also that "having" isn't set off by commas. Therefore we'd prefer "that" to "having." That's one reason to pick (B).

A second decision point is the verb tense, "had reduced" vs. "reduced." Any time we have the construction "By + YEAR IN PAST," and we wish to communicate that the action in question happened before this year, we'd use "had." In this case, the sentence includes the phrase "by 1920," and the reduction seems to have happened before 1920, so "had reduced" is correct, and (B) is again our champion.

I hope that helps!
GMATNinja
Thanks for the nice explanation. +1.
Could you discuss the meaning of the following 3 versions, please? Always expecting wonderful explanation from you :)
    "The dog, having eaten Dana's homework, is no longer hungry."
    "The dog having eaten Dana's homework is no longer hungry."
    "The dog, which has eaten Dana's homework, is no longer hungry."

--
Also, it is better to explain the usage of 'shad' in choices A and E. Is 'shad' an adjective in A and E?
Thanks__

GMATNinja,
Hello Sir,
I'm going to tag you again thinking that you missed my query!
Show more
As discussed above, it makes more sense to use "having" with incidental information set off by commas. So the second example is something that you probably wouldn't ever see.

The third example sets off the "which..." part with commas, implying that there is only one dog and that the "which..." part isn't crucial information. (By the way, you probably want to use "who" instead of "which" if you want to avoid the wrath of dog lovers who like to think that their pets are really people!).

But, as with most things SC, the goal here is NOT to come up with a list of black and white rules that can be blindly applied to other problems (i.e. "'having' set off by commas means X, a noun modifier set off by commas means Y, a noun modifier NOT set off by commas means Z...). The explanation above is meant to show how the choice of "that" vs "having" subtly affects the meaning in this particular example. Is that difference a rock solid reason to eliminate D? Nope. But it's a vote in favor of B over D.

As for (A) and (E): "shad" certainly modifies "migration." But that doesn't quite mean that it's an adjective. It's absolutely fine for nouns to modify other nouns (i.e. "blueberry muffin" or "town hall"). These are called attributive nouns, if you like the jargon.

I hope that helps a bit!
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,781
 [1]
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: 7,445
Kudos: 69,781
 [1]
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 30 Sep 2020, 14:53
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hoozan
GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo egmat EducationAisle sayantanc2k

Please could I now what does "their" in "their spawning streams" refer to?

The word spawning is generally used to refer to the reproduction of fish, thus "their spawning streams" I guess is used to modify "Shad". But isn't Shad singular"


Usage of "having" in (D) and (E)
E.g Having done his homework, Ron went out to play.

In the above, the "having done his homework" denotes an action that is already taken place and post this action, Ron went out to play.

Keeping the above in mind I wasn't able to understand why "having blocked" in (D) and (E) is incorrect?
Show more
The word "shad" (like the word "fish") can be either singular or plural. So "their" does in fact refer to "shad."

As for your question about "having": have you tried reviewing this post?
User avatar
Patilsv28
User avatar
Joined: 14 Jun 2019
Last visit: 06 Aug 2021
Posts: 26
Own Kudos:
3
Given Kudos: 42
Location: India
Schools:  (S)
GMAT 1: 640 Q47 V31
Schools:  (S)
GMAT 1: 640 Q47 V31
Posts: 26
Kudos: 3
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 02 Oct 2020, 05:33
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
egmat
monidip1010
How is B the right answer??? It uses Past Perfect tense for an event that is happening later in the timeline. Pls help.


Hello monidip1010,

I will be glad to help you out with this one. :-)


This official sentence uses the phrase by 1920. Whenever the phrase by 1234 is used in a sentence, it requires the usage of past perfect tense. It is so because the expression denotes that first some other action took place, and then 1234 arrived.

Same is the case with the usage of by 1920 in this official sentence. Presence of this phrase says that over-fishing and the proliferation of milldams and culverts had already reduced the amount of landings by the time 1920 arrived. Hence, use of past perfect tense verb had reduced is correct.


Hope this helps. :-)
Thanks.
Shraddha
Show more


Hi GMATNinja VeritasKarishma egmat

why not 'had blocked' as in the below sentence?
by 1920 over-fishing and the proliferation of milldams and culverts that had blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams reduced landings to less than four million pounds.

is 'that blocked' in choice B actins as Noun + Noun modifier or as a verb?
User avatar
saby1410
User avatar
Joined: 06 Feb 2017
Last visit: 10 Jun 2025
Posts: 183
Own Kudos:
23
Given Kudos: 93
Location: India
Posts: 183
Kudos: 23
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 05 Nov 2020, 00:49
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasKarishma GMATNinja ChiranjeevSingh
Do we need conjunction to seperate both action blocked and had reduced?

If not then why

Posted from my mobile device

Isn't there is meaning change in correct question tense error blocked happen after dams had reduced landings
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,986
 [3]
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: 76,986
 [3]
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 05 Nov 2020, 23:30
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
saby1410
VeritasKarishma GMATNinja ChiranjeevSingh
Do we need conjunction to seperate both action blocked and had reduced?

If not then why

Posted from my mobile device

Isn't there is meaning change in correct question tense error blocked happen after dams had reduced landings
Show more

The two actions are not connected.

"that blocked shad from migrating ..." is a "that clause" modifying milldams and culverts

So the second independent clause is:
"... over-fishing and the proliferation of milldams and culverts (modifier) had reduced landings ..."
avatar
i256
avatar
Joined: 04 Jul 2017
Last visit: 01 Dec 2020
Posts: 23
Own Kudos:
9
Given Kudos: 34
Location: India
Schools: Harvard '23 (S)
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
GPA: 4
Schools: Harvard '23 (S)
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
Posts: 23
Kudos: 9
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 12 Nov 2020, 22:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Is the word 'that' referring here to the action "over-fishing and proliferation" ?? Or 'that' is referring to the noun phrase "over-fishing and proliferation of XX "

Due to this decision point I eliminated the first 3 options. Is there any way to tell when the usage of 'that' (in such convoluted cases) is correct?
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 13 Nov 2020, 00:08
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
i256
Is the word 'that' referring here to the action "over-fishing and proliferation" ?? Or 'that' is referring to the noun phrase "over-fishing and proliferation of XX "
Show more
None.

that refers to the proliferation of milldams and culverts, because from a logical (intended) meaning perspective, proliferation of milldams and culverts blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses modifier issues of "that", their application and examples in significant detail. If you or someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,781
 [1]
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: 7,445
Kudos: 69,781
 [1]
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 23 Dec 2020, 16:06
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sabrinaZ
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.

(B) that blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less
Hi experts, GMATNinja, mikemcgarry, daagh
Please help..

I came back for this question because I got the following question wrong.

1.The first pulsar, or rapidly spinning collapsed star, to be sighted was observed in the summer of 1967 by graduate student Jocelyn Bell, but the discovery was not announced until February 1968.
2.Although the first pulsar, or rapidly spinning collapsed star, to be sighted was in the summer of 1967 by graduate student Jocelyn Bell, it had not been announced until February 1968.

I know "it" used in sentence 2 makes it not the better choice, but the OG said the past-perfect verb tense is inappropriate in the concluding clause.. I don't understand why it is inappropriate... Is it because both time happened in the past, and 1968 clearly happened after 1967, so we use single past? But why in the quoted question, "blocked shad...had reduced landings to less by 1920" is the right verb tense?

Thanks in advance!
Show more
Interesting question! First, I'd take anything you read in an official explanation with a grain of salt. The explanations aren't written by the same folks who write the questions, and so while some explanations are good, others are a little suspect.

Here's how I think they're reasoning: there's a difference between a concrete action completed at a specific time in the past, and a more abstract action that occurs over a prolonged period of time. Consider two examples:

    1) By late 2019, the Tampa Bay Raptors had won a single NBA championship.

In this case, the team won their title at a specific time (June 2019) and this completed action occurred before another past tense marker (late 2019.) Therefore, it makes sense to use the past perfect ("had won") here.

Compare that with the following:

    2) The Tampa Bay Raptors did not win a title until 2019.

This sentence is more like the second option in the official question. Now the action -- not winning a title -- doesn't occur at a specific time. It's not like you can point to May 13, and say "that's the day they failed to win the title!" Failing to do something is more abstract. So in this case, because we don't have a concrete action completed at a specific time before another past tense marker, it's fine to use the simple past, "did."

That said, am I 100% confident that it's definitively wrong to write "The Tampa Bay Raptors had not won a title until 2019?" No. I'm not. And I think it's misleading to make it sound as though it's an obvious grammatical error. After all, 2019 was the past, and the team wasn't winning the title before that year, so it's not like this reasoning is totally outlandish. It just doesn't feel as ironclad as the first sentence when you certainly needed to use "had."

And for what it's worth, if I encountered the second construction on the exam, I'd look for a clearer error before eliminating an answer choice. As you noted, the "it" in the second official example seems to be standing in for "a sighting," a noun that doesn't show up elsewhere in the sentence. This is a much better reason to get rid of that option than the supposedly faulty usage of the past perfect.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
gmexamtaker1
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jul 2018
Last visit: 13 Feb 2023
Posts: 210
Own Kudos:
79
Given Kudos: 261
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 210
Kudos: 79
Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than 03 Jan 2021, 07:34
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
payalkhndlwl
GMATNinja can you pls explain the diff between B&D?
The first decision point is "that" vs "having." When we're using a modifier to specify a noun, or differentiate that noun from a larger group, we'd use "that." For example:

    "The dog that ate Dana's homework is kind of a jerk."

In this case, there could be multiple dogs, and I'm differentiating between the dog that ate Dana's homework and other dogs with better etiquette.

I'm not sure there's ever a time when "having" would be mandatory, but if we were to use it as a modifier, we'd do so to add incidental information:

    "The dog, having eaten Dana's homework, is no longer hungry."

Notice that in this case, "having eaten Dana's homework" is set off by commas to communicate that this information isn't crucial. There's only one dog, and this dog happened to have eaten Dana's homework. (Notice also that the phrase beginning with "having + verb" describes an action that happened before the other action in the sentence.)

In this question, we're talking specifically about the "milldams sand culverts that blocked shad" as opposed to milldams and culverts, in general. And while comma usage is rarely important, notice also that "having" isn't set off by commas. Therefore we'd prefer "that" to "having." That's one reason to pick (B).

A second decision point is the verb tense, "had reduced" vs. "reduced." Any time we have the construction "By + YEAR IN PAST," and we wish to communicate that the action in question happened before this year, we'd use "had." In this case, the sentence includes the phrase "by 1920," and the reduction seems to have happened before 1920, so "had reduced" is correct, and (B) is again our champion.

I hope that helps!
Show more

Hello GMATNinja,
I was wondering whether you could help me with this one , I get why B is the correct one , I just want to make sure that I have understood why D is incorrect, in our case having is without commas so having blocked refers back to proliferation (of milldams and culverts modifies proliferation) and that doesn't make sense because proliferation did not block the shads, (some specific milldams and culverts did-that's why we want a "that") on the other hand if we had commas then it would be a non-restrictive modifier and having would not have an impact on the sentence-it could even be removed, so it would be considered correct.
   1   2   3   4   5   6   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts