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

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?

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

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!

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.
Shraddha

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.
Shraddha

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


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.
Shraddha

Dear Team,
I am not convinced why option E is wrong?

I request for detailed explanation
bb generis GMATNinja egmat EMPOWERgmatVerbal

Several deatiled expanations are given on previous THREE pages of discussion.

Hope it helps.

I’m convinced Bunuel is a group of people, judging by the number of posts and around-the-clock posting ?

Posted from my mobile device

Dear Bunuel

Thanks for revert. I have gone through all previous explanation. It is mentioned that "laws to require" is unidiomatic. This doesn't convince me. I request if you can share detailed explanation on the same.

Thanks in advance.

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.

Hi Souvik,

Can you please help me as to why the option A is not referring to as the subjunctive mood?
The words "require + that" are valid acceptances for the subjunctive, isnt it?

souvik101990

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.

Why "compliance" is being the subject in this rather "turtle-excluder"?

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.

SUBJECT AND VERB AGREEMENT , MODIFIERS


Here's my take on this classic question.




Best,


Rod

I'm not sure this logic is perfect

to verbals describe the intention of a verb not a noun (law)