This sounds perfectly fine to me… but it’s wrong, unfortunately. Whenever “less” is used to modify a noun, that noun must be non-countable. And you can definitely count rhinos, so it’s wrong to say “less than 400 Sumatran rhinos.”

So (A) is out.


(B) has exactly the same error as (A): “less” can only modify a non-countable noun, and “Sumatran rhinos” are still countable.

For whatever it’s worth, I’m also not sure that I understand why “surviving on the Malay peninsula…” has been turned into a modifier. That phrase makes more sense as part of the main clause, as it is in (A).

But even if you don’t agree with me on that, the “less… rhinos” thing is definitely a problem. (B) is gone.


Ha ha, this is literally saying that “the Malay peninsula and the islands of Sumatra and Borneo” literally occupy “a small fraction of the species’ former range." And that makes no sense -- how could a peninsula occupy the rhinos' range? (If you have no idea what I’m talking about, please read this article about “-ing” modifiers.)

More generally, the construction of this sentence hides the most important part of the sentence. We have no idea that the sentence is about Sumatran rhinos until the last few words. That’s not cool.

So we have plenty of reasons to ditch (C).


This looks better! “Occupying a small fraction of the species’ former range” correctly modifies the following clause: “fewer than 400 Sumatran rhinos survive…” That works, especially since the countable modifier “fewer” correctly modifies “rhinos.”

So let’s keep (D).


This isn’t terrible, except for that little modifier again: “less than 400 Sumatran rhinos” doesn’t work, since “less” can only modify non-countable nouns, and rhinos are clearly countable. (And large. I have a friend in Namibia who was tossed by one. He flew about 15 feet in the air, and lived to tell the tale. Tough dude.)

Anyway, (E) is gone, and (D) is our winner.
_________________

1)The first split is LESS vs FEW..
Since the # of rhinos is countable, FEW is correct here...... ONLY C and D are left..

2)In C, the phrase -Occupying a small fraction of the species’ former range- is wrongly modifying regions/Areas Malay and Sumatra, whereas it should modify Rhinos.
D is correct answer
_________________

Less than 400 Sumatran rhinos survive on the Malay peninsula and on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo, and they occupy a small fraction of the species’ former range.

A) Less than 400 Sumatran rhinos survive on the Malay peninsula and on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo, and they occupy a small fraction of the species’ former range.
Less than is wrong here, as 400 Sumatran rhinos are mentioned which means the rhinos are countable. Also, notice what does 'they' refer to?

B) Less than 400 Sumatran rhinos, surviving on the Malay peninsula and on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo, occupy a small fraction of the species’ former range. Same mistake as A i.e. Less than

C) Occupying a small fraction of the species’ former range, the Malay peninsula and the islands of Sumatra and Borneo are where fewer than 400 Sumatran rhinos survive.
Though fewer than is correct in this sentence, but, as per the Comma Subject rule, after the first comma, Rhinos should be mentioned not the Malay peninsula and the islands of Sumatra

D) Occupying a small fraction of the species’ former range, fewer than 400 Sumatran rhinos survive on the Malay peninsula and on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo.
Usage of 'fewer than' is correct and as you can notice, the comma subject rule is also in place for this sentence structure

E) Surviving on the Malay peninsula and on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo, less than 400 Sumatran rhinos occupy a small fraction of the species’ former range.
Less than is again wrong over here.

Less than 400 Sumatran rhinos survive on the Malay peninsula and on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo, and they occupy a small fraction of the species’ former range.

Issue: Modifier

Analysis:
1. First split to notice in options is "Less than" vs "Fewer than". Since, "rhinos" are countable we need to use "Fewer than" (eliminate A, B and E)
2. "Occupying a small fraction.." should modify "rhinos" to make sensible sentence. "Rhinos" are the main subject of the sentence who are occupying the fraction of range. (eliminate C)

A) Less than 400 Sumatran rhinos survive on the Malay peninsula and on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo, and they occupy a small fraction of the species’ former range.

B) Less than 400 Sumatran rhinos, surviving on the Malay peninsula and on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo, occupy a small fraction of the species’ former range.

C) Occupying a small fraction of the species’ former range, the Malay peninsula and the islands of Sumatra and Borneo are where fewer than 400 Sumatran rhinos survive.

D) Occupying a small fraction of the species’ former range, fewer than 400 Sumatran rhinos survive on the Malay peninsula and on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo.

E) Surviving on the Malay peninsula and on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo, less than 400 Sumatran rhinos occupy a small fraction of the species’ former range.

Answer: (D)

PS: There might be other errors in the incorrect options that I have not mentioned here.

HI mikemcgarry, GMATNinja , GMATGuruNY



Can you please explain a bit about the verb -ing (surviving on the Malay peninsula) present here?
_________________

In B and E, surviving serves to modify rhinos occupy, implying that act of SURVIVING is HOW the rhinos OCCUPY a small fraction of the species' former range.
This meaning is illogical.
Eliminate B and E.
In the OA, occupying serves to modify rhinos survive, implying that the act of OCCUPYING a small fraction of the species' former range is HOW the rhinos SURVIVE.
This meaning is logical.
_________________

Please explain me the meaning of first sentence....i.e what does species former range means?

In this context:
range = the area occupied by a species.
Consider the following case.

Former range:
The rhinos used to live on a parcel of land with an area of 1000 square miles.
Current range:
The rhinos now live on a parcel of land with an area of 100 square miles.
Since 100/1000 = 1/10, the rhinos now occupy a small fraction -- 1/10 -- of the species' former range.
_________________

Hi! The official guide says that in B, apart from the less than 400..., the phrase surviving.... is wrong, but I don't get why. Would you please clarify? Thanks in advance.
_________________

(B) Less than 400 Sumatran rhinos, surviving on the Malay peninsula and on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo, occupy a small fraction of the species’ former range.

The point to be made is that fewer (less) than 400 Sumatran rhinos survive in this area.

However, in (B), the main verb is not "survive" but rather "occupy," and "survive" has become "surviving," and appears in a participial phrase.

A participial phrase separated from the rest of the clause by commas, as is "surviving on the Malay peninsula and on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo," modifies the entire clause, explaining something about the events described in the clause.

In this case, the event in question is "Sumatran rhinos ... occupy." So, the participial phrase modifies that action.

The result is a sentence that conveys that less than 400 Sumatran rhinos occupy a small fraction of the species' former range by surviving on the Malay peninsula and on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo.

Since it does not really make sense that the rhinos would occupy by surviving, (B) does not make sense.
_________________

MartyTargetTestPrep

Can verb-ing modifier come before the main clause and denote a result.

Not really.

In some cases, perhaps, one could argue that what's descibed in an opening participial phrase is somehow the result of what's outlined by the clause that follows that phrase, but really, such instances would result from the fact that, in some cases, cause and effect are not easy to tell apart. It does not make sense for an opening participial phrase to be intended to describe a result of what's outlined by the clause that follows.
_________________

Hi Guys,

The OG says "they" in A is ambiguous, I wonder why? I would have thought that as its the subject of an IC, it refers to the subject of the previous IC, which is Rhinos. Is it because it could potentially refer to the "islands" too?

EducationAisle GMATGuruNY, ExpertsGlobal5

Yes TargetMBA007, technically they is ambiguous because they can also refer to islands.

However, for the reason you've cited (subject of IC), this is not a problematic issue in this sentence.
_________________

You have a good point. The structure of the sentence certainly suggests that "they" refers to the subject of the previous clause ("rhinos"). Could "they" technically refer to "islands" too? Perhaps. Does that make the "they" ambiguous? Maybe a little bit? (D) avoids that issue altogether, so that could be a small vote in favor of (D) over (A).

But even if we call that pronoun "ambiguous," pronoun ambiguity is not an absolute rule (as discussed in this video), so that's certainly not a good enough reason to eliminate (A). (A) has a bigger problem, as described in this post.

Lastly, as explained here, you should take anything you read in an official explanation with a grain of salt, since they aren't written by the people who design the questions .

I hope that helps a bit!
_________________

Experts please help. Shouldn't the verbs occupy and survive both referring to the same subject [Rhinos] have the same construction?

Not necessary!

by the time, experts reply. here is my thought:

While talking over the phone, I was drinking coffee.
I was talking over the phone and drinking coffee.
I went to a hotel and met a freind .
I went to hotel so that I could meet a freind
I went to the hotel ,a place where I met my freind.

The key point is: you can represent the idea in number of ways. It is not restricted with stringent rule that both the verb must be in same form/tense etc.

I hope it helps.

As mSKR pointed out, there is no rule that requires two verbs to be in the same exact tense or form even if they have the same subject. It all depends on the context, meaning, and timeline indicated by the particular sentence.

Additionally, in (D) the word "occupying" is actually not a verb at all -- it's a modifier! The subject of the sentence is "fewer than 400 Sumatran rhinos," and the main verb of the sentence is "survive." The bit before the comma -- "Occupying a small fraction of the species’ former range," -- just serves to describe the rhinos.

For more on "-ing" words, check out this article.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Less than 400 Sumatran rhinos survive on the Malay peninsula and on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo, and they occupy a small fraction of the species’ former range.


A. Less than 400 Sumatran rhinos survive on the Malay peninsula and on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo, and they occupy a small fraction of the species’ former range. “Less” cannot be used to refer to countable nouns.

B. Less than 400 Sumatran rhinos, surviving on the Malay peninsula and on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo, occupy a small fraction of the species’ former range. “Less” cannot be used to refer to countable nouns.

C. Occupying a small fraction of the species’ former range, the Malay peninsula and the islands of Sumatra and Borneo are where fewer than 400 Sumatran rhinos survive. “Occupying a small fraction of the species’ former range” needs to be followed by who or what was doing the occupying. In this case, “Malay peninsula” does not fit.

D. Occupying a small fraction of the species’ former range, fewer than 400 Sumatran rhinos survive on the Malay peninsula and on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo. Correct answer.

E. Surviving on the Malay peninsula and on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo, less than 400 Sumatran rhinos occupy a small fraction of the species’ former range. “Less” cannot be used to refer to countable nouns.

-Nitha Jay
_________________