GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

 It is currently 07 Aug 2020, 09:32

### 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

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

# Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 21 Mar 2017
Posts: 49
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jul 2017, 12:16
2
carcass sorry for tagging! I am trying to get an answer for a long time. Why B is the correct ans here? Requiring demands the use of subjunctive, right? Isn't "is protecting" wrong here "requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting" ?????
Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3495
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Jul 2017, 01:12
1
Top Contributor
Last week local shrimpers via which they said: hey turtle X is back. Until now all is ok.

Now the tough part: saying that their compliance with laws I.E. the obedience under certain laws is protecting the turtles.

A. is wrong because requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect is weird and protect seems that the nets protect the turtles itself not the local shrimpers

C. that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets protect - same reasons

D. to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets are protecting - to require and are protecting generate a sentence totally wrong. Reading it that way has no sense

E. to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting - same reasons

B. saying that their compliance with laws requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting adult sea turtles.

Hope now is clear.

Regards
_________________
Intern
Joined: 09 Mar 2017
Posts: 32
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2017, 06:50
If in C, protect was plural (protects). Would it have been correct? The OG answer says that "that require" is wordy and unnecessary, but that part sounds better to me. Again, assuming it didn't have the protect issue.
Board of Directors
Status: Emory Goizueta Alum
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 3607
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2017, 01:36
1
brandon7 wrote:
If in C, protect was plural (protects). Would it have been correct? The OG answer says that "that require" is wordy and unnecessary, but that part sounds better to me. Again, assuming it didn't have the protect issue.

namrata88 wrote:
hi all,
i know this sub-verb agreement question.
But however i fail to understand the how the Subject is compliance here.

Hi namrata88 / brandon7 ,

Welcome to GMATClub

Here I go:

1st Query:

Yes, in that case C would have been correct. But note that there is no reason to reject option B as well. So, a typical GMAT question will never have two such options at the same time. Hence, rest assured about that.

2nd Query:

Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp's ridley turtle, saying that their compliance with laws requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting adult sea turtles.

The clause after 'saying that' is an independent clause.

their compliance with laws requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting adult sea turtles.

Now, look at the above sentence, if you remove the fluff, you will find something as follows:

their compliance with laws requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting adult sea turtles.

Can you see the subject now?

Compliance is the subject and is protecting is the verb.

Let me know in case of any concern.
_________________
My LinkedIn abhimahna. | My GMAT Story: From V21 to V40 | My MBA Journey: My 10 years long MBA Dream
My Secret Hacks: Best way to use GMATClub | Importance of an Error Log!
Verbal Resources: All SC Resources at one place | All CR Resources at one place
GMAT Club Inbuilt Error Log Functionality - View More | Best Reply Functionality on GMAT Club!
New Visa Forum - Ask all your Visa Related Questions - here | Have OPT questions? - Post them here.
Find a bug in the new email templates and get rewarded with 2 weeks of GMATClub Tests for free
Check our new About Us Page here. |
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 3107
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2017, 03:51
1
brandon7 wrote:
If in C, protect was plural (protects). Would it have been correct? The OG answer says that "that require" is wordy and unnecessary, but that part sounds better to me. Again, assuming it didn't have the protect issue.

Hello brandon7,

Choice C of this official sentence has only the subject verb number agreement error. While their compliance is a singular subject, protect is a plural verb.

Please note that protects is a singular verb that will agree in number with the singular subject their compliance.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
_________________
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 3107
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2017, 03:57
1
abhimahna wrote:
Hi namrata88 / brandon7 ,

Welcome to GMATClub

Here I go:

1st Query:

Yes, in that case C would have been correct. But note that there is no reason to reject option B as well. So, a typical GMAT question will never have two such options at the same time. Hence, rest assured about that.

2nd Query:

Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp's ridley turtle, saying that their compliance with laws requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting adult sea turtles.

The clause after 'saying that' is an independent clause.

their compliance with laws requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting adult sea turtles.

Now, look at the above sentence, if you remove the fluff, you will find something as follows:

their compliance with laws requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting adult sea turtles.

Can you see the subject now?

Compliance is the subject and is protecting is the verb.

Let me know in case of any concern.

Hello abhimahna,

You have presented very crisp analyses here. Great job there.

However, I would just like to let you know that what follows saying that is not an independent clause. It is a dependent clause because the connector that always starts a dependent clause.

The connector that always associates with the clause that it starts. So essentially, after saying, we have a dependent clause that reads: that their compliance with laws... is protecting adult sea turtles.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
_________________
Manager
Status: IF YOU CAN DREAM IT, YOU CAN DO IT
Joined: 03 Jul 2017
Posts: 178
Location: India
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Oct 2017, 22:26
In this question I made an error of identifying the wrong Subject and said that the devices are the subject. But later realized that devices cannot be the subject because follows the prepositional phrase with and hence cannot be the subject. Is my reasoning correct?
VP
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1093
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2017, 01:55
nevergiveup wrote:
OG16 SC134
Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp's ridley turtle, saying that their compliance with laws requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles.

A. requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect
B. requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting
C. that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets protect
D. to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets are protecting
E. to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting

Hi egmat

What is the difference between laws requiring and laws that require ?
Also i have seen question with such structure .
How can one identify the where to use them properly.

Regards,
Arvind
Intern
Joined: 20 Sep 2017
Posts: 4
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2017, 10:56
I chose B because it seemed the closest answer to me, but I don't understand why the correct answer should not "requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets was protecting" instead of "on shrimp nets is protecting"?
Can anyone explain it to me please?

Thank You!
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 3107
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2017, 12:33
longhaul123 wrote:
In this question I made an error of identifying the wrong Subject and said that the devices are the subject. But later realized that devices cannot be the subject because follows the prepositional phrase with and hence cannot be the subject. Is my reasoning correct?

Hello longhaul123,

I am not sure if you still have this doubt. Here is the explanation nonetheless.

In Choice A, devices surely is the subject but not in any other choice.

Please note that those nouns cannot act as the subject that are immediately preceded by a preposition. But that is not the case with devices in any of the answer choices.

In all the other four answer choices, devices actually acts as the object of the action require.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
_________________
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 3107
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2017, 12:39
arvind910619 wrote:
Hi egmat

What is the difference between laws requiring and laws that require ?
Also i have seen question with such structure .
How can one identify the where to use them properly.

Regards,
Arvind

Hello Arvind / arvind910619,

I am not sure if you still have this doubt. But there is the explanation.

There is no difference between the expressions laws requiring and laws that require. They both mean the same, and hence, we cannot choose one over the other.

Choice C is incorrect for the incorrect verb protect and not because of laws that require.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
_________________
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 3107
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2017, 12:45
1
kimhoon27 wrote:
I chose B because it seemed the closest answer to me, but I don't understand why the correct answer should not "requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets was protecting" instead of "on shrimp nets is protecting"?
Can anyone explain it to me please?

Thank You!

Firstly, there is no answer choice that gives the option to choose was protecting. All the answer choices uses the present tense verbs.

Secondly, use of present tense verb in the original sentence that this action of protecting the turtles is prevalent in the present. It is not that the turtles were being protected in the past. They still are being protected by the local shrimpers.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
_________________
Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2018
Posts: 106
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2018, 02:18
Sentence Analysis
The sentence says that local shrimpers held a news conference last week. They did so to take credit for the revival of some turtle species. In the news conference, they said something. What did they say?

Let’s focus on the part after “saying that” i.e.

their compliance with laws requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles.
Here, “requiring” is a verb-ing modifier modifying the previous noun “laws”. So, “requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets” is a modifier modifying laws. The sentence is, therefore, essentially:

their compliance with laws protect adult sea turtles.
We can see that we have a SV agreement error here: subject “compliance” is singular, and verb “protect” is plural.
Intern
Joined: 23 Sep 2017
Posts: 18
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2018, 03:15
1
"1. Subject = Their compliance with laws => the verb must be Singular => A,C,D out
2. Verb-ing modifier "requiring"" describe the laws, while TO Verb Modifier show the purpose => "Requiring is correct "
Intern
Joined: 01 Aug 2017
Posts: 2
Location: India
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Sep 2018, 23:06
Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp's ridley turtle, saying that their compliance with laws requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles.

A. requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect sentence fragment
B. requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting
C. that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets protect
D. to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets are protecting
E. to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting

It took me a few seconds to understand the subject is 'compliance' and NOT 'laws' - this understanding makes all the difference. The reason the subject is 'compliance' is that 'laws' on their own cannot result in protecting the adult sea turtles if no one is complying with them. So it is the 'compliance' with those laws that helps in protecting the turtles.
Once you understand this then it is only a matter of S-V agreement.

Hope this helps
Intern
Joined: 12 Apr 2018
Posts: 7
Location: India
Schools: ISB '21 (S)
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V40
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2018, 22:31
Eliminate options A, C & D on the basis of the fact that it used a plural verb 'protect' or 'are protecting' with the singular subject 'complaince'.

D & E also wrongly frame the sentence as 'to frame'

remaining is option B which resolves all errors
VP
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 1058
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jan 2019, 07:25
noun+to do
is a combination which is explained by some grammar books.

the point is the meaning relation between the noun and "to do".

the way to learn gmat
the lesion to learn

appositive relation: to do is appositive of the noun. the first sentence is this case

objective relation: noun is the objective of to do: the second sentence is this case.

so, the noun dose not neccessarily perform the action of to do. but in the combination "noun+doing", the noun certainly do the action presented by "doing".

the meaning of "law to require" is that the law do not require but some other persons require. the meaning is " the law for government to require its citizens to pay tax." this meaning is correct and "law to require" dose exist in English

if we focus on who do the action of " requiring", we can differentiate "law requiring" and " law to require" and, so, we can find the correct meaning.
Manager
Joined: 06 Sep 2018
Posts: 167
Location: Pakistan
Concentration: Finance, Operations
GPA: 2.87
WE: Engineering (Other)
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jan 2019, 04:19
(A) requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect

(B) requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting

(C) that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets protect

(D) to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets are protecting

(E) to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting
Intern
Joined: 07 May 2018
Posts: 33
GMAT 1: 560 Q43 V25
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2019, 21:36
nevergiveup wrote:
Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp's ridley turtle, saying that their compliance with laws requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles.

(A) requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect

(B) requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting

(C) that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets protect

(D) to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets are protecting

(E) to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting

https://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/us/vietnamese-join-us-shrimp-fishermen-in-protest.html

Dean M. Wilkinson, wildlife legislative director for Greenpeace, an environmental group, did not dispute that. ''Each shrimp boat probably doesn't catch more than a few turtles a year,'' he said. ''But when you spread that out across a 17,000-boat fleet, it adds up to big numbers. And we're talking about animals that are on the edge of extinction.''

Environmentalists estimate the total number of Kemp's ridleys at not more than 10,000, including less than 600 nesting females.

Mr. Wilkinson said that the protest over the use of the devices was based largely on misinformation. He said that an earlier design for these turtle excluder devices was bulky and did decimate the shrimp catch, but added, ''There are now 300 boats using TED's and they say it's not hurting them.''

Tee John Mialjevich, a Louisiana shrimper who is a protest leader, said that should a law requiring the use of devices be enacted, he and many other fishermen would disobey it.

The Vietnamese shrimpers, however, said they were not certain they would participate in an illegal protest. ''We don't know yet what we'd do,'' Mr. Huy said. ''We'd have to see. But now we are doing this, which we are allowed to do.''

The Official Guide for GMAT Review, 12th Edition, 2009

Practice Question
Question No.: SC 133
Page: 682

Hello all,
In the option A of this sentence "requiring" followed by that and the verb form "be" shows the subjunctive mood of the sentence whereas the correct option(B) omits this particular usage and is still deemed to be correct. Why is it so?
Thanks.
VP
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 1058
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Feb 2019, 09:38
[quote="nevergiveup"]Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp's ridley turtle, saying that their compliance with laws requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles.

(A) requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect

(B) requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting

(C) that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets protect

(D) to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets are protecting

(E) to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting

let me say something
gmat test meaning not pattern of sentence. if gmat test pattern, it is easy. if gmat test pattern, there must be one pattern wrong and one pattern right. but never easy that way.
instead, gmat test meaning by presenting 2 patterns both of which can be correct but in context of question, only one pattern is correct. we use meaning logic to find which pattern is correct

come back to our question. "law requiring " and "law to require". which one is correct

the answer is both pattern can be correct. but depending on context, onely one pattern is correct

here "law to require" mean " law for sombody to require" or " law for government to require". this means government require. this make less sense. "law which require" is correct

but if we say "law to learn English" , this is correct "law to learn English" means " law for someone to learn English". this is good.

law to learn English require that persons learn in the public schools but not in private schools becaue the private schools has no teachers trained in US.

this is correct sentence. law require is logic. and "law for person to learn" is logic.

we can not use "law learning English" because law can not learn

" law to do" or " law doing" is correct depending on the meaning of the verb " to do".

another example of gmat thinking.

the theory that non natives can get 700 on gmat is testified by test scores.
the theory of non natives who can get 700 on gmat is testified by test scores.

the second sentence is incorrect because "theory of non natives " is immediately not logic. if sentence has only one wrong combination, the whole sentence is wrong. one wrong combination is "theory of non natives".

but "theory +noun" can be correct, depending on meaning of the noun.

the theory of getting 700 on gmat of the non natives is testified.
the noun is "getting" and "theory of getting " is logic.

the takeaway is that if we see 2 pattern/ combinations, dont think that one of them is wrong grammatically (this case is too easy), but think that both can be used grammatically but only one of them is logic in the context of sentence. this is the point gmat want to test us.
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit   [#permalink] 26 Feb 2019, 09:38

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 55 posts ]