It is currently 23 Nov 2017, 06:26

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

VP
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1078

Kudos [?]: 663 [0], given: 70

Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Dec 2012, 16:03
can we not eliminate a few of the options on the basis of S- V error apart from taking "Compliance" into consideration.
saying that their compliance with laws requiring that.......
That marks the presence of a dependent clause it must have a verb but clearly first that has got no verb in it and hence can be considered wrong.
Similar manner we can eliminate C.

Kudos [?]: 663 [0], given: 70

Manager
Joined: 13 Oct 2012
Posts: 69

Kudos [?]: -9 [0], given: 0

Schools: IE '15 (A)
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V46
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2013, 17:29
B is correct.
Laws requiring is correct and compliance .... is protecting is correct
Laws to require is unidiomatic

Kudos [?]: -9 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 1393

Kudos [?]: 168 [0], given: 916

Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jan 2013, 07:09
what is difference among

law requiring
law to requie
law for requiring

pls, help
_________________

visit my facebook to help me.
on facebook, my name is: thang thang thang

Kudos [?]: 168 [0], given: 916

MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4695

Kudos [?]: 17702 [0], given: 1986

Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jan 2013, 09:49
thangvietnam wrote:
what is difference among

law requiring
law to requie
law for requiring

pls, help

last-week-local-shrimpers-held-a-news-conference-to-take-76039-20.html#p1122687
_________________

Kudos [?]: 17702 [0], given: 1986

Intern
Joined: 16 Nov 2012
Posts: 38

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 54

Location: United States
Concentration: Operations, Social Entrepreneurship
Schools: ISB '15, NUS '16
GMAT Date: 08-27-2013
GPA: 3.46
WE: Project Management (Other)
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 May 2013, 03:21
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[/u] requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles.[/u]

Here in this SC we have three clauses.Every clause must have a subject and working verb.
clauses

1.Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp's ridley turtle, saying - non underlined part.

2. that their compliance with laws requiring - here some part is correct some part is wrong.The error in this clause is that SV agreement.In this clause subject is "compliance" a singular subject ( "laws" is not a subject because it is preceded by a preposition).Singular subject requires a singular working verb which is absent in the clause.

3. that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles - underlined portion of SC.Here subject is "turtles- excluder devices" is plural subject requires plural verb.Here the verb is "protect" is plural.So the SV agreement is correct.

POE of choices.

A. requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect-- if we chose this option the second clause goes wrong with SV agreement.Incorrect
B. requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting-- here 2 and 3 clauses are clubbed forming a single clause.In this clause subject is "compliance" the verb "is" singular.SO correct
C. that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets protect--same error as A.Incorrect
D. to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets are protecting--here 2 and 3 clauses are clubbed forming a single clause.In this clause subject is "compliance" which is singular and but the verb "are" plural.So Incorrect]
E. to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting-- Here 2 and 3 clauses are clubbed but clause lacks working verb."protecting " is a gerund. Incorrect

Note- If my explanation is wrong please correct me.Feedback is always appreciated.
_________________

.........................................................................................
Please give me kudos if my posts help.

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 54

Intern
Joined: 16 Nov 2012
Posts: 38

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 54

Location: United States
Concentration: Operations, Social Entrepreneurship
Schools: ISB '15, NUS '16
GMAT Date: 08-27-2013
GPA: 3.46
WE: Project Management (Other)
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 May 2013, 03:51
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[/u] requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles.[/u]

Here in this SC we have three clauses.Every clause must have a subject and working verb.
clauses

1.Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp's ridley turtle, saying - non underlined part.

2. that their compliance with laws requiring - here some part is correct some part is wrong.The error in this clause is that SV agreement.In this clause subject is "compliance" a singular subject ( "laws" is not a subject because it is preceded by a preposition).Singular subject requires a singular working verb which is absent in the clause.

3. that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles - underlined portion of SC.Here subject is "turtles- excluder devices" is plural subject requires plural verb.Here the verb is "protect" is plural.So the SV agreement is correct.

POE of choices.

A. requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect-- if we chose this option the second clause goes wrong with SV agreement.Incorrect
B. requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting-- here 2 and 3 clauses are clubbed forming a single clause.In this clause subject is "compliance" the verb "is" singular.SO correct
C. that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets protect--same error as A.Incorrect
D. to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets are protecting--here 2 and 3 clauses are clubbed forming a single clause.In this clause subject is "compliance" which is singular and but the verb "are" plural.So Incorrect]
E. to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting-- Here 2 and 3 clauses are clubbed but clause lacks working verb."protecting " is a gerund. Incorrect

Note- If my explanation is wrong please correct me.Feedback is always appreciated.
_________________

.........................................................................................
Please give me kudos if my posts help.

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 54

Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4315

Kudos [?]: 8192 [2], given: 364

Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 May 2013, 04:12
2
KUDOS
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?
_________________

Can you solve at least some SC questions without delving into the initial statement?

Narendran 98845 44509

Kudos [?]: 8192 [2], given: 364

Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4315

Kudos [?]: 8192 [0], given: 364

Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 May 2013, 04:37
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?
_________________

Can you solve at least some SC questions without delving into the initial statement?

Narendran 98845 44509

Kudos [?]: 8192 [0], given: 364

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 333

Kudos [?]: 431 [0], given: 4

Schools: LBS '14 (A)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 May 2013, 05:56
Hi Daagh,

Totally agree with you on S/V - leaving us with B or E.

However I would say that 'laws requiring' is the correct phrase. I can't say I have any idiom table that refutes your point, but it just sounds awful to my eat the other way, and it's not an idiom I've come accross
_________________

Former GMAT Pill student, now on staff. Used GMATPILL OG 12 and nothing else: 770 (48,48) & 6.0

... and more

Kudos [?]: 431 [0], given: 4

Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4315

Kudos [?]: 8192 [0], given: 364

Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 May 2013, 06:00
sorry plumber250 ; I meant to write E is out and B is eventually ; Yes E is terrible . That is what I have said in the explanation before my final sentence,; it ia typo
_________________

Can you solve at least some SC questions without delving into the initial statement?

Narendran 98845 44509

Kudos [?]: 8192 [0], given: 364

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 333

Kudos [?]: 431 [0], given: 4

Schools: LBS '14 (A)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 May 2013, 06:07
You absolutely do. Sorry - I did not read your post properly.

Apologies all around!
_________________

Former GMAT Pill student, now on staff. Used GMATPILL OG 12 and nothing else: 770 (48,48) & 6.0

... and more

Kudos [?]: 431 [0], given: 4

Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 418

Kudos [?]: 240 [0], given: 70

Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 May 2013, 06:11
All duplicate threads on this topic have been merged.

Kudos [?]: 240 [0], given: 70

Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2012
Posts: 114

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 57

Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 May 2013, 19:53
My 2 cents

compliance is usually used as - My compliance with the state law ensures that no harm is done. ( Singular format )

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

A,C are out because of the singular use of compliance.
"laws to require" is unidiomatic. "laws that require" is more meaningful. This eliminates D and E

B seems to be a good choice although it has -ing usage in 3 places.

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 57

Intern
Joined: 15 Jul 2012
Posts: 37

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 245

Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Sep 2013, 10:59
daagh wrote:
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?

cant the plural pronoun 'their' be used as the subject of the 2nd clause, making me select option D. im confused here.

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 245

Manager
Status: Prep Mode
Joined: 25 Apr 2012
Posts: 164

Kudos [?]: 181 [0], given: 69

Location: India
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Sep 2013, 11:34
saggii27 wrote:
daagh wrote:
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?

cant the plural pronoun 'their' be used as the subject of the 2nd clause, making me select option D. im confused here.

Whenever in doubt regarding the subject of the clause, figure out the verb and then check who is modifying this verb.

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.

B: requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting
D: to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets are protecting

So, the Verb Tense is Present Continuous "is protecting" or "are protecting" ? Now, ask this question to yourself, who is actually the doer of the action i.e. what is protecting adult sea turtles.

Is it Their(shrimpers) or the Compliance (with laws) ???

It has to be the compliance which is protecting adult sea turtles.Thus, the subject of the clause is compliance and not their. Hope it helps.

Kudos [?]: 181 [0], given: 69

Manager
Status: Please do not forget to give kudos if you like my post
Joined: 19 Sep 2008
Posts: 121

Kudos [?]: 104 [0], given: 257

Location: United States (CA)
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2013, 13:35
B for me.

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

A. requiring....protect --> wrong ||sms
B. requiring..protecting..keep ---> "saying that their compliance with laws requiring turtle-excluder devices" is concise.
C. require...protect...keep ---> "saying that their compliance with laws that require turtle-excluder devices" is too wordy
D. require...protecting --> wrong ||sms
E. requite..protecting --> wrong ||sms
_________________

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Kudos [?]: 104 [0], given: 257

Manager
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Posts: 218

Kudos [?]: 83 [0], given: 47

Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jan 2014, 11:27
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

I got this one wrong because I was too quick, here's the breakdown though:

A) we need s-v agreement: compliance is our subject, so we need a singular verb. Protect is plural, A is gone
B) "Is" is a correct verb to use with compliance, so B is correct.
C) protect is incorrect. C is gone
D) are is incorrect, D is gone
E) the infinitive form "to require" is wrong and awkward. The present participle requiring implies we have a present requirement, which is the intended meaning of the author.

Therefore, B is correct

Kudos [?]: 83 [0], given: 47

Current Student
Joined: 06 Mar 2014
Posts: 269

Kudos [?]: 114 [0], given: 84

Location: India
GMAT Date: 04-30-2015
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Sep 2014, 15:19
x2suresh wrote:
eileen1017 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

try to find the main subject and verb here..

Main subject : compliance

Sub- Verb Problem

A,C -- > are out.

D -->out

between B and E

"laws to require" is not idiomatic

B is better.

Subject + Verb should make sense.
So Compliance (Subject) ....is protecting (verb) does not really make sense here.

Kudos [?]: 114 [0], given: 84

Manager
Joined: 21 Apr 2015
Posts: 53

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 89

GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2015, 12:45
here are my 2 cents

This statement is a "cause and effect" statement. So it requires -ing verb. This eliminates A & C .
to protect doesn't work here. we can eliminate D & E based on this.

Only B remains...

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 89

Intern
Joined: 29 Aug 2015
Posts: 11

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Concentration: Strategy, Technology
Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Dec 2015, 11:50
I have a question here.

When checking for S-V agreement in the question ".... saying that their compliance with laws requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles"

We remove all the interrupters in between right i.e prepositional phrases, modifiers, subordinate clauses, -ing participles etc.

Applying that principle i had got "...saying that their compliance with laws.......protect sea turtles"

Should i also ignor with ? if yes then why ?

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f   [#permalink] 01 Dec 2015, 11:50

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5   6    Next  [ 112 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by