Different from owners of German shepherds, some town ordinances do not

It is a classic example of testing parallelism in a sentence

Options A and B incorrectly compare ordinances to other things.
C compares correctly, but "no such regulations" changes the meaning of the sentence
D- Correct
E- Why would we need passive voice. It is just off...

Different from owners of German shepherds, some town ordinances do not require confinement or being leashed for owners controlling collies or sheep dogs.

A. Different from owners of German shepherds, some town ordinances do not require confinement or being leashed for owners controlling - modifier error, different from owners... is modifying some town ordinances

B. Unlike owners of German shepherds that are required by some town ordinances to be confined or leashed, there are none for owners control - owners of German... are compared to ordinances

C. Though some town ordinances require owners of German shepherds to keep their dogs confined or on leashes, no such regulations have been required of owners to control - parallelism error

D. Though some town ordinances require owners of German shepherds to keep their dogs confined or leashed, few such regulations exist requiring owners to control

E.Though there were confinement or leash regulations required by some town ordinances of owners of German shepherds, there are none for the controlling of - past tense incorrect

Choice D is correct as reason above.
_________________

Hi,

I agree with the parallelism part as rightly stated by all.

But in D:

The difference "few such changes" and "no such changes" brings a change in meaning..can someone please clarify on that?

As per the original sentence we have :"do not require".. which goes in-line with "no changes"

Kindly clarify.

Regards,
Dom.

Few such changes refers to some town ordinances and not the do not require... part.

C has idiom problem

require somebody to do something
require something of somebody

something is required of sombody

there is no idiom like C.

does option D changes the meaning of original sentence?
_________________

No it does not. The intended meaning is - although there are restrictions on owners of German shepherds, there are few such restrictions on owners controlling collies or sheep dogs. This is what the option D says.

Does it help?

Hi,

Original sentence says "Different from owners of German shepherds, some town ordinances do not require confinement or being leashed for owners controlling collies or sheep dogs. "

IMO - owners of german shepards require X
Some ordinaces do not require

But option D says "Though some town ordinances require owners of German shepherds to keep their dogs confined or leashed, few such regulations exist requiring owners to control"

Some ordinances require x
Owners to control

I feel this changes the meaning..please advise where am I going wrong. why option C is incorrect!
_________________

focua of sc is to test meaning. whe we focus on meaning, structural error will appear.
in C. meaning problem is
such regulation have been required of owners. no logic
in E, meaning problem is
regulation required by ordinance, no logic.

Yes, I agree with you. "some ordinances do not require" is not same as "few such regulations exist" - "some does not require" means "some require", and "some" does not mean "few". However since other options have other serious grammatical error, we have to accept this slight change in meaning.

Why is option C wrong?

1. "confined" and " on leashes" are not parallel - better is "confined" and "leashed".

2. Option C states that "no " such regulations.....implying there is not a single regulation about collies or sheep dogs. However it is mentioned in the original sentence that there are "some" regulations that do not apply to collies and sheep dogs, implying that there are at least "some"regulations that apply to collies and sheep dogs. This change in meaning is big enough to render option C unacceptable.

Option D is better than option C because " few" is closer to "some" than "none" is.

sayantanc2k Thank you!
_________________

sayantanc2k Please could you comment on "requiring" in (D)

Requiring must modify the noun "regulations" but it is placed after "exist" and is not preceded by any COMMA.

Official Explanation:

The underlined portion of the sentence contains the words different from, so check for comparisons. The underlined portion of the sentence also contains an introductory modifying phrase, so check to make sure the correct nouns are being modified. The comparison is between the noun owners and the noun ordinances, comparing people to rules. This is a comparison error. The phrase different from owners of German shepherds, currently modifies town ordinances. This is a misplaced modifier error. Eliminate choice A and look for obvious repeaters. The answer choices all require some evaluation to determine their errors, so, there are no obvious repeaters. Now evaluate the remaining answer choices individually, looking for reasons to eliminate each.

Choice B compares owners to the clause there are none. These are not similar items, so this is a comparison error. Eliminate choice B. Choice C eliminates the direct comparison by changing the structure of the sentence to not compare two items. This choice also eliminates the modifier error by not including any modifying phrases. However, the choice creates a parallelism error as the verb require is not parallel to the verb phrase have been required. Eliminate choice C. Choice D eliminates the direct comparison by comparing ordinances to regulations, does not commit a misplaced modifier error, and introduces no new error. Keep choice D. Choice E eliminates the direct comparison entirely, but uses the phrase of owners of German shepherds to incorrectly modify ordinances, implying that the ordinances belong to these owners. Eliminate choice E.

Choice A: No. The owners are incorrect compared with ordinances. Comparison.

Choice B: No. The owners are incorrect compared with there are none. Comparison.

Choice C: No. Require and have been required are not parallel. Parallel construction.

Choice D: Correct.

Choice E. No. Of owners of German shepherds incorrectly modifies ordinances. Misplaced modifier.

The correct answer is choice D.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________