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

When we get something like 'limitation(S), then we should consider it as plural, and we have to use plural sign. But, in D and E, they used singular sign LESS, which is used in wrong way, isn't it?
Thanks...
N.B.: I got the answer of my previous question.

"Clans" is not a place - "where" is a wrong relative pronoun to refer to "clans".

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

A. whose access to water was less limited ------>CORRECT
B. where there was access to water that was less limited ------->; here "where is not referring to an actual place
C. where they had less limited water access ------>; here "where is not referring to an actual place
D. with less limitations on water access -------->distorted the intended meaning;here seems "water access" may be imposed by another authority ,other than blessed by natural good effect(intended meaning)
E. having less limitations to water access -------->distorted the intended meaning;here seems "water access" may be imposed by another authority ,other than blessed by natural good effect(intended meaning)

Hi sayantanc2k
I like your explanation for having
i read one thread that "having" is incorrect ,
I broke this idea after your explanation.
but i am a little confused, please confirm
as long as "having" works as a participle and as an adjective, it is correct,
except this condition, "having" is incorrect, right?
did i miss something ?

thanks a lot
have a nice day
>_~

Like all other verbs, "having" may also be used in the following forms:

Verb (progressive tense):
I am going to school.
I am having a pizza.

Gerund (noun):
Going to school is no fun.
Having a pizza is great fun.

All the above sentences are correct.

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

A. whose access to water was less limited
- "whose" correctly joins "other clans" to "access to water"

B. where there was access to water that was less limited
- "where" can only be used if there is a physical place that is being referenced -- not the case here

C. where they had less limited water access
- same issue as "B"

D. with less limitations on water access
- "limitations on" is unidiomatic as well as passive

E. having less limitations to water access
- "having less" incorrectly modifies the entire phrase before. Also passive construction.

Kudos please if you find this helpful

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

A. whose access to water was less limited
Access to water is correct ; Whose correctly modifies 'clans'
B. where there was access to water that was less limited
Where modifies place ; here it changes the meaning : Incorrect
C. where they had less limited water access
water access is wrong
D. with less limitations on water access
Same as C
E. having less limitations to water access
Same as C

A it is.

It's a good question.

Limitations - countable noun and hence usage of "less" is incorrect, correct usage is "few"

Where - is used to modify actual physical locations.

In D, is the usage of with correct?

Let us first dissect the sentence
As rainfall began to decrease in the Southwest about the middle of the twelfth century, - This is the dependent clause
most of the Monument Valley Anasazi abandoned their homes to join other clans whose access to water was less limited.
Their refers to the MVA.
Whose refers to the clans.
SV pair MVA abandoned.


(A) whose access to water was less limited
This is the correct choice.

(B) where there was access to water that was less limited
Clans where there was - is incorrect acess to water that was less limited is indirect.

(C) where they had less limited water access
Clans where – here where refers to the clans. They had – is incorrect usage of had.

(D) with less limitations on water access
This is indirect and hence incorrect

(E) having less limitations to water access
The use of having a present continuous tense is incorrect.

isn't "less limited" redundant? The access to water was limited. We certainly do not say "access to water was more limited" So how does "less limited" make sense?

Here "limited" modifies "access" and makes it clear that there was a lack of access to water

Hello, Hoozan. In the context of the sentence, less limited is not redundant. There is a comparison drawn between two different Native American groups, the Monument Valley Anasazi and other clans (whether those were Anasazi clans or part of some other larger tribe). Less limited conveys that between these two groups, one had better access to water than the other, although both groups may have had to endure limited access to the resource. You could reinterpret the main clause in the following manner:

most of the Monument Valley Anasazi abandoned their homes to join other clans whose access to water was less limited than their own

Note that if you remove less, you destroy the comparison and fundamentally alter the meaning of the sentence:

most of the Monument Valley Anasazi abandoned their homes to join other clans whose access to water was limited

This second sentence begs the question, Then why did the Monument Valley Anasazi join these other clans? That is, we understand from the part of the sentence I omitted that the Monument Valley Anasazi faced difficulties concerning water, but there is no compelling reason for them to have joined other clans who also had limited access to water. But if these clans had less limited access, then presumably they had enough water to share with the displaced Monument Valley Anasazi. There are other instances in which comparatives are used in front of similar words to make a point—less restricted, for example, which would suggest that rules are still in place, but perhaps not as strictly observed as before—but the only ones you can immediately disqualify, something that I have never seen on the GMAT™, are those with absolute words whose pairing creates a logical mismatch. An example I have seen from the GRE® is less invulnerable. There are no degrees of invulnerability: something is either invulnerable or not, in which case it is vulnerable.

I hope that helps. If you have further questions, feel free to ask. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

I am still struggling with how limitations is a countable noun

A) - Hold on to this choice as we can't find any error.
B) and C) - where is modifying clan (group). where is used to modify location.
D) and E) - less limitations (limitations is countable, so few can be used e.g few limitations)

So, we are left with A).

Hey deep31993, it always helps to count and test although I agree that some rules and constructions may be difficult to digest. I always try to compare it with some sure shot uncountable nouns and see if they can be used interchangeably.

Eg -
A - There are several limitations on this contract.
B - How many?
A - About 1000.

Hello Experts,
avigutman AnthonyRitz MartyTargetTestPrep

In Option C - usage of past perfect tense is correct ?

Event 1- Clans had less limited water access
Event 2 - Monument Valley Anasazi abandoned their homes to join other clans


In Option D - the usage of preposition with is correct ?

with modifies ?
a- clans with less limitations on water access
or
b-most of the Monument Valley Anasazi abandoned their homes with less limitations on water access

In Option E - usage of having is correct ? having is modifying clans ?

Thanks.
PS: I know there are other major errors in Options C ,D ,and E. I just want to understand the specific doubts mentioned above

What makes you think it’s past perfect, PriyamRathor?

Posted from my mobile device