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

Hello Everyone!

Let's tackle this question, one issue at a time, and narrow it down to the correct choice! To start, here is the original question with any major differences between the options highlighted in orange:

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

After a quick glance over the options, there are a couple places we can focus on:

1. requiring / require (Idioms)
2. protect / is protecting / are protecting (Subject-Verb Agreement)

Let's start off with #2 on our list: subject-verb agreement. No matter which way we go with this, it will eliminate at least 2 options rather quickly. The first thing we need to do is figure out what the subject is:

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.

Now that we know the verb needs to work with the singular subject "compliance," we can rule out any options that don't agree:

(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

We can eliminate options A, C, & D because their verbs are plural, and they don't agree with their singular subject! See - how easy was that?

Now let's go back to #1 on our list: to require / requiring. This is an issue of idioms! By using the wrong idiom here, it actually changes the overall meaning:

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

This is CORRECT! It's idiomatically correct to say that "laws requiring X" here. It's clear that the law currently requires these changes to be made already. It also uses proper subject-verb agreement (compliance / is protecting).

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

This is INCORRECT because the phrase "laws to require X" isn't idiomatically correct in English. It also changes the meaning somewhat - the law that exists today will require people to use turtle-excluder devices in the future? That doesn't really make sense with how laws work. Laws require actions to be taken immediately - not in the future.


There you have it - option B is the correct choice! If we focus on the major differences between the options, we can eliminate the wrong options quickly to get to the right one!


Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.

"laws to require..." isn't a correct idiom if you're discussing the actual text of the laws themselves. if you were discussing the ultimate purpose of those laws, then this could be idiomatic.
examples:
laws specifying long jail sentences for drunk drivers --> correct (___ing), since that's what the laws actually specify.
laws to specify long jail sentences for drunk drivers --> incorrect (that's not the ultimate purpose of the laws)
laws to discourage drunk driving --> correct (this IS actually the ultimate purpose of the laws)

Credits: Ron Purewal

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of the crucial part of this sentence is that the shrimpers complied with laws that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets, protecting adult sea turtles.

Concepts tested here: Subject-Verb Agreement + Meaning + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• The infinitive verb form (“to + base form of verb" - "to + require" in this sentence) is the preferred construction for referring to the purpose or intent of an action.
• The simple present continuous tense is used to refer to actions that are currently ongoing and continuous in nature.
• The simple present tense is used to indicate actions taking place in the current time frame, indicate habitual actions, state universal truths, and convey information that is permanent in nature.

A: This answer choice incorrectly refers to the singular noun “compliance” with the plural verb “protect”. Additionally, Option A incorrectly uses the simple present tense verb “protect” to refer to an action that is currently ongoing and continuous in nature; please remember, the simple present continuous tense is used to refer to actions that are currently ongoing and continuous in nature, and the simple present tense is only used to indicate actions taking place in the current time frame, indicate habitual actions, state universal truths, and convey information that is permanent in nature. Further, Option A uses the needlessly wordy phrase “that turtle-excluder devices be on”, leading to awkwardness/ redundancy.

B: Correct. This answer choice correctly refers to the singular noun “compliance” with the singular verb “is protecting”. Additionally, Option B correctly uses the simple present continuous tense verb "is protecting" to refer to an action that is currently ongoing and continuous in nature. Further, Option B uses the phrase "laws requiring”, conveying the intended meaning – that the shrimpers complied with the particular laws that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets. Besides, Option B is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

C: This answer choice incorrectly refers to the singular noun “compliance” with the plural verb “protect”. Additionally, Option C incorrectly uses the simple present tense verb “protect” to refer to an action that is currently ongoing and continuous in nature; please remember, the simple present continuous tense is used to refer to actions that are currently ongoing and continuous in nature, and the simple present tense is only used to indicate actions taking place in the current time frame, indicate habitual actions, state universal truths, and convey information that is permanent in nature.

D: This answer choice incorrectly refers to the singular noun “compliance” with the plural verb “are protecting”. Further, Option D alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase “laws to require”; the use of the infinitive verb form (“to + base form of verb” – “to + require” in this case) incorrectly implies that the shrimpers complied with general laws for the purpose of requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets; the intended meaning is that the shrimpers complied with the particular laws that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets; please remember, the infinitive verb form (“to + base form of verb" - "to + require" in this sentence) is the preferred construction for referring to the purpose or intent of an action.

E: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase “laws to require”; the use of the infinitive verb form (“to + base form of verb” – “to + require” in this case) incorrectly implies that the shrimpers complied with general laws for the purpose of requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets; the intended meaning is that the shrimpers complied with the particular laws that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets; please remember, the infinitive verb form (“to + base form of verb" - "to + require" in this sentence) is the preferred construction for referring to the purpose or intent of an action.

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



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

IMO, this is an ‘open and shut’ case involving S-V matching . Limiting just to the underline part, we may see that the subject of the subordinate clause introduced by ‘ that ‘ is compliance, a simple singular noun and therefore its verb should be matching with yet again a singular . You have the singular specification only in B and E; In E, ‘laws to require’ is unidiomatic while ‘laws requiring’ is the custom usage. So E. any hitch?

Still B.

In C : that --> modifies laws.

its like you are introducing suborinate clause:
laws <that> require "turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets" protect

here for verb --> "protect" subject looks like "devices" --> which is gramaticall correct, but logicall incorrect.

If you change the "protect" to protects" is also not going to help in the sentence C.
Now both itis gramatically and Logically incorrect.

Note: 'protect' needs the verb form for the subject 'compliance', so should be protects.

A, C, D are gone
D and E are gone for the "to require", which is incorrect.

Only B left

I think that is correct in A, only verb form of protect is incorrect.

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 - 'protect' is wrong. 'compliance' protects or is protecting
(B) requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting - saying, requiring, protecting
(C) that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets protect - 'protect' is wrong. 'compliance' protects or is protecting
(D) to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets are protecting - 'compliance' is singular. Hence we need 'is protecting'...'are' is incorrect. 'to require' is incorrect here.
(E) to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting - 'to require' is incorrect here.

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 --> the whole modifier requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp is too wordy to modify for laws, single noun their compliance is not suitable with protect
B. requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting -->the best: requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is a more simple participle phrase modifier for laws than that of A. Besides, is protecting is compliant with their compliance
C. that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets protect -->same error of A
D. to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets are protecting -->to + Inf here does not clearly modify for which Noun and betterly idiomatically modifies for another to + inf than a Noun. Also, are protecting is grammatical incorrect with their compliance
E. to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting -->same error of D

The best way to solve is look for subject-verb agreement. complaince should have singular verb thus we have only b and e left. E makes no sense as the use of infinitive is wrong. Thus B must be the answer

A S/V do not agree in number.
B Correct.
C S/V do not agree in number.
D S/V do not agree in number.
E "To require" is incorrect because the infinitive of purpose does not make sense. The ultimate goal of the law is not "to require" but rather "to protect." The requirement is merely a byproduct of the law.

Hello adkikani/Arpit,


I would be glad to help you resolve your doubt.


The word compliance indeed is a noun. That is the reason why it can act as a subject in a clause.

Also, there is no issue in the expression of their compliance in Choice A. The pronoun their acts as a possessive pronoun that is followed by a noun. For example: my pen, your car, his project, her recipe, etc.

In Choice A, their compliance stands for the local shrimpers' compliance. Hence, choice A only one error - the Subject-Verb number disagreement error.


Let's dive deeper into this sentence to understand how to solve this question by using the meaning-based approach.






Sentence Structure


Meaning
The sentence starts by saying that local shrimpers organized a press conference last week. They did so to take credit for the revival of the Kemp’s ridley turtles that are rare. In this conference, the shrimpers said that they were adhering to laws that require the presence of turtle-excluder devices on nets for catching shrimps. Their adherence to the laws was able to save adult sea turtles.



SV Number Agreement Error: The singular subject “compliance” does not agree in number with the plural verb “protect.”

Note: The usage of the word “requiring” calls for the use of the subjunctive verb in the sentence. Therefore, we see the usage of the verb “be” for the subject “turtle-excluder devices.” This usage is correct.




A. requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect
Incorrect: This choice is incorrect, as explained in the Error Analysis section.


B. requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting
Correct: This choice rectifies the only error of Choice A and clearly presents the intended meaning.

C. that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets protect
Incorrect:
SV Number Agreement Error: This choice repeats the SV agreement error of Choice A.

D. to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets are protecting
Incorrect:

1. SV Number Agreement Error: This choice repeats the SV agreement error of Choice A.

2. Idiom Error: The usage of the phrase “to require” is incorrect in this sentence because requiring the said devices on shrimp nets is not the purpose/intent of the said laws. The intent of the laws is to save the turtle. The law is that shrimp nets must have these devices.

E. to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting
Incorrect:
Idiom Error: This choice repeats the idiom error of Choice D regarding the usage of “to require.”



1. The subject and the verb must agree in number.
2. The expressions used in the correct answer choice must be idiomatic and must convey the intended meaning clearly.



Here is a video solution we made for this question:



Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

priyanshu14 , a number of other decision points exist.

You are focused on "laws to require," though.
Why are you not convinced?
Explain your reasoning, please?
Sources?
Argue your case. HERE.

"Laws to require" cannot be used in this context.
We cannot talk about the content of the already-passed law with the words "to require."
We can talk about
-- a law that requires
-- a law requiring

We can say that the purpose of a law is to require something.
But the content of an extant law cannot be described with "to require."
-- Doing so makes it sound as though the content is not yet in force.

Last week shrimpers were talking about laws with which they complied.
Those laws are laws THAT require X, Y, and Z.
They are laws requiring X, Y, and Z.

The content of the law requires something right now.
The content of the law does not "to require" something.
The law's content THAT requires something...
Reduce the relative clause: The law's content requiring something...

A law TO require something has not yet been passed.

If we want laws TO require A, B, and C, then we must write them.
• We should pass a law to require people who have their finger on a nuclear trigger to undergo routine psychiatric checkups.
• I hope that the legislature enacts a law to require skiers to wear avalanche signals.
• The wingnuts wanted to pass a law to require that schoolchildren be prevented from reading The Scarlet Letter.

The shrimpers did not comply a week ago with laws TO require XYZ.

shahjenil93 Souvik didn't say that command subjunctive wasn't being used, but rather that "be" was the verb used to form the command subjunctive. Answer choice A says "REQUIRE THAT devices BE on nets."

In any case, we need PROTECT as the verb for COMPLIANCE, so anything else we do with PROTECT will render the whole thing a non-sentence.

Also, it's worth noting that if we do use the command subjunctive, we can't demand anything of the nets or the devices themselves. We can demand that devices be included, or that some kind of net be used, but we can't require the devices to be on the nets or require the nets to protect turtles, since the devices and nets aren't people that can follow our commands.

Hello fatsam0786,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your question, the subjunctive mood is one of the three "moods" in the English language and is used to refer to possibilities. The command subjunctive refers to uses of the subjunctive mood to express commands, requests, etc.

To understand the concept of "Subjunctive Mood" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~20 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Hi lakshya14,

Let's take a look at that phrase:
1. their compliance with laws requiring turtle-excluder devices

Turtle-excluder just defines devices. That is, it tells us what kind of devices we're talking about.

2. their compliance with laws requiring some devices
is like
3. their compliance with laws requiring something

Requiring turtle-excluder devices just defines laws.

3. their compliance with laws requiring something
is like
4. their compliance with some laws

The shrimpers are not saying that some laws protect sea turtles. They're saying their adherence to those laws is what is protecting sea turtles.

The first thing I notice: we have a choice between a plural verb and a singular one. The subject here is "compliance," so we want the singular verb phrase, "is protecting." That eliminates (A), (C), and (D).

Now we have to decide between "laws to require" and "laws requiring." This is all about meaning. If a government passes a law to do something, we're talking about the desired outcome of the law. A law to make driving safer, for instance, doesn't tell you what the law actually does. It tells you the goal behind creating the law.

But a law requiring something would tell us what the law actually does. A law requiring lower speed limits, for instance, gives us the actual mechanics of the law.

So that's the question. And here, we're definitely getting the mechanics of the law -- turtle-excluder devices are required. So we want "laws requiring," which leaves us with (B).

The takeaway: don't try to memorize that discussion about the difference between "a law to do" and "a law requiring." Take this is an example of a question that comes down to thinking hard about meaning and trying to determine which option is more logical, when there's no more grammar to evaluate.

I hope that helps!

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