Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 23:30 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 23:30
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   
User avatar
teaserbae
User avatar
Joined: 24 Mar 2018
Last visit: 07 Mar 2022
Posts: 191
Own Kudos:
45
Given Kudos: 288
Location: India
Schools: Carlson Foster '24 Haas '24 Kelley '24 Kellogg '24
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V31
Schools: Carlson Foster '24 Haas '24 Kelley '24 Kellogg '24
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V31
Posts: 191
Kudos: 45
Once numbering in the millions worldwide, it is estimated that the wol Updated on: 01 Nov 2018, 00:56
Originally posted by teaserbae on 29 Oct 2018, 01:34.
Last edited by teaserbae on 01 Nov 2018, 00:56, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello experts,
GMATNinja aragonn AjiteshArun Skywalker18

I have read the above explaination but I am still not clear and confused between option D and E ?
How do we realize that noun + noun modifier is required and with approximately is wrong ?
Moreover what's wrong with to an estimate of 20000 ... ?
User avatar
thangvietnam
User avatar
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Last visit: 09 Mar 2023
Posts: 768
Own Kudos:
418
Given Kudos: 2,198
Posts: 768
Kudos: 418
Once numbering in the millions worldwide, it is estimated that the wol 01 Nov 2018, 00:40
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
lets talk about grammar a little bit
though gmat focus on testing meaning and logic, gmat dose test some grammar points which are basic, hard and neccessary to convey meaings.

noun+noun modifier can work as adverb and adjective. when noun+noun modifier word as an adverb modifying previous sentence, this phrase can or can not go with "with".

(with)many persons failing on gmat, I get a good score.

when this phrase work as adverb, it shows context, reason, effect of the main clause. there are some meaning relations between this phrase and the main clause , and, so, this phrase as an adverb is called versatile.

this phrase can work as an adjective.

I like good students, the person who study seriously.

only if this phrase works as an adverb, it is called "absolute phrase".
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,780
 [12]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,780
 [12]
Once numbering in the millions worldwide, it is estimated that the wol 10 Nov 2018, 18:05
5
Kudos
Add Kudos
7
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
teaserbae
Hello experts,
GMATNinja aragonn AjiteshArun Skywalker18

I have read the above explaination but I am still not clear and confused between option D and E ?
How do we realize that noun + noun modifier is required and with approximately is wrong ?
Moreover what's wrong with to an estimate of 20000 ... ?
Show more
Here's (D) again:

Quote:
(D) wolves have declined to an estimate of 200,000 in 57 countries, with approximately
Show more
First, it's strange to claim that the population of wolves animals has declined to an estimate rather than an estimated number. Also, typically when we have a construction that uses a clause + "with", "with _______" will modify the previous verb. For example, "I ran for several miles with great intensity." In this case "with great intensity" describes how I "ran."

In (D) the verb preceding "with" is "declined." It makes no sense for wolves to decline "with approximately 11,000 of them." One could run with 11,000 wolves. (Not recommended.) One could dine with 11,000 wolves. (Ditto.) But declining with 11,000 wolves? That's clearly wrong.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
thangvietnam
User avatar
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Last visit: 09 Mar 2023
Posts: 768
Own Kudos:
418
Given Kudos: 2,198
Posts: 768
Kudos: 418
Once numbering in the millions worldwide, it is estimated that the wol 01 Feb 2019, 10:26
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
in choice D, "with+noun" works ad an adverb. but this modification between the adverb and main clause is not logic. this is the main reason for which choice D is wrong
User avatar
Annet1524
User avatar
Joined: 20 Jul 2018
Last visit: 05 Aug 2021
Posts: 79
Own Kudos:
84
Given Kudos: 23
Location: Russian Federation
Concentration: Strategy, Leadership
WE:Consulting (Manufacturing)
Posts: 79
Kudos: 84
Once numbering in the millions worldwide, it is estimated that the wol 21 Aug 2019, 00:16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
1st split wolf/wolves = because them A,B,C - out
2nd split meaning - D out declined to an estimate - sounds bad

The answer is E
User avatar
LIBERTYRodP
User avatar
Joined: 30 Jan 2019
Last visit: 01 Apr 2024
Posts: 127
Own Kudos:
78
 [1]
Given Kudos: 14
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 127
Kudos: 78
 [1]
Once numbering in the millions worldwide, it is estimated that the wol 10 Jan 2020, 10:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Easy question, if we have the appropriate approach

First, we must notice the use of the pronoun "them" . Noticing this, we can eliminate answer choices A, B , and C

Besides, we should also immediately eliminate answer choice A, since the sentence starts with a modifier, and the "it" used by answer choice A is not a true pronoun (doesn't refer to any noun) and, thus, cannot be modified.

Finally, answer E is more concise and direct than D.


In summary


(A) it is estimated that the wolf has declined to 200,000 in 57 countries, some -- "it" is incorrect as it cannot get modified by the previous modifier. "The wolf" is incorrect as later we have "them", which indicates that we are talking about a plural.

(B) the wolf is estimated to have declined to 200,000 in 57 countries, with approximately --- "The wolf" is incorrect as later we have "them", which indicates that we are talking about a plural. [/color]

(C) the wolf has declined to an estimate of 200,000 in 57 countries, some -- "The wolf" is incorrect as later we have "them", which indicates that we are talking about a plural. [/color]

(D) wolves have declined to an estimate of 200,000 in 57 countries, with approximately -- "to an estimate" is wordy and awkward.

(E) wolves have declined to an estimated 200,000 in 57 countries, some --- CORRECT
avatar
mk96
avatar
Joined: 14 Mar 2018
Last visit: 18 Sep 2022
Posts: 79
Own Kudos:
22
Given Kudos: 194
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
Schools: IIMA PGPX'22
GPA: 4
WE:Corporate Finance (Finance: Investment Banking)
Schools: IIMA PGPX'22
Posts: 79
Kudos: 22
Once numbering in the millions worldwide, it is estimated that the wol 04 Mar 2021, 10:21
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
In one of our recent YouTube live videos, we spent a little bit of time discussing a totally unsexy idea: if you miss the important stuff in the NON-underlined portion of the sentence, you can get yourself into trouble on SC. And in this question, the word “them” should jump off the page at you, even though it's not underlined. It’s a sure sign that “wolves” needs to be plural.

With that in mind…

Quote:
(A) it is estimated that the wolf has declined to 200,000 in 57 countries, some
Well, “wolf” is singular in (A), and that’s a pretty big problem. The opening modifier (“once numbering in the millions worldwide”) also needs to be followed with something that actually “numbered” in the millions – so we need “wolves” to follow the comma.

So we have two great reasons to eliminate (A).

Quote:
(B) the wolf is estimated to have declined to 200,000 in 57 countries, with approximately
(B) has one of the same problems as (A): “them” (in the non-underlined portion of the sentence) can’t logically refer to “the wolf.”

And that’s enough to eliminate (B).

Quote:
(C) the wolf has declined to an estimate of 200,000 in 57 countries, some
And yet again: “them” is plural, but “the wolf” is singular. I’ll have more to say about the phrase declined to an estimate of 200,000” in a moment.

But for now, we can ditch (C).

(D) and (E) are the only two answer choices that correctly use the plural form of “wolves”, so let’s line these two up side-by-side:
Quote:
(D) wolves have declined to an estimate of 200,000 in 57 countries, with approximately
(E) wolves have declined to an estimated 200,000 in 57 countries, some
There are only two differences between the two answer choices. The first difference is the big one. In (D), we have “declined to an estimate of 200,000”, and it doesn’t quite make sense to say that the wolves declined to an estimate. (E) is much better: the wolves (i.e., the number of wolves) declined to “an estimated 200,000”, which is a far clearer way to indicate that the wolf population declined to a certain level.

And there’s arguably a meaning difference at the end of the sentence: in (E), “some 11,000 of them…” very reasonably modifies “an estimated 200,000 in 57 countries.” In (D), I can’t quite make sense of the word “with” – in general, “with” suggests some sort of accompaniment (“I ate burritos with green chile” or “I went to the movies with my daughter”), and I can’t quite figure out how that would apply here.

So both of those differences are subtle, but both point in the same direction: (E) is better than (D).
Show more


can someone explain how "some ...." is modifying the preceding clause before the commma?
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,780
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,780
 [2]
Once numbering in the millions worldwide, it is estimated that the wol 05 Mar 2021, 10:32
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mk96
can someone explain how "some ...." is modifying the preceding clause before the commma?
Show more
Here's the sentence using choice (E):

Quote:
(E) Once numbering in the millions worldwide, wolves have declined to an estimated 200,000 in 57 countries, some 11,000 of them to be found in the lower 48 United States and Alaska.
Show more
I'd actually argue that "some 11,000 of them..." modifies "an estimated 200,000 in 57 countries," giving us more specific information about a subset of those 200,000. This sort of construction (some comma-separated information that modifies a noun before the comma) is quite common:

  • "Nickelback has released several albums, many of which have inexplicably reached platinum status."
  • "Justin Bieber has recorded several pop hits, some of them more annoying than others."

You can find countless examples of official SC answers that include such comma-separated extra information (here's one that comes to mind). And as discussed in this long-winded video, the GMAT doesn't really test comma usage that deeply, so I wouldn't get hung up over that aspect of it.

Remember, the GMAT will never ask you, "What, exactly, does this portion of the sentence modify?" After all, it's a verbal reasoning test, not a grammar test. So instead of thinking about this super-mechanically, ask yourself, "What is the stuff after the comma actually doing in this sentence? What purpose does it serve?" In this case, "some 11,000 of them..." simply gives us more information about the ~200,000.

In other words, what does the stuff after the comma seem to modify? Is the meaning clear and logical? If yes, then it's probably not worth trying to reconcile the construction with a preconceived set of so-called grammar rules.

Rant over. I hope that helps!
User avatar
ueh55406
User avatar
Joined: 19 Dec 2020
Last visit: 31 Aug 2021
Posts: 149
Own Kudos:
48
 [1]
Given Kudos: 316
Posts: 149
Kudos: 48
 [1]
Once numbering in the millions worldwide, it is estimated that the wol 13 Apr 2021, 12:46
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja, what about the "in 57 countries, some 11,000 of them. Maybe I'm being too mechanical here, but kinda sounds like we're modifying countries, not not the wolves.

Appreciate your help on this.

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,780
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,780
 [1]
Once numbering in the millions worldwide, it is estimated that the wol 20 Apr 2021, 20:29
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ueh55406
GMATNinja, what about the "in 57 countries, some 11,000 of them. Maybe I'm being too mechanical here, but kinda sounds like we're modifying countries, not not the wolves.

Appreciate your help on this.

Posted from my mobile device
Show more
Not an unreasonable thought. Two things to keep in mind here. First, "11,000 of them" isn't underlined, and every answer choice offers some version of "57 countries," so even if the pronoun were a problem, it's a problem in every option, and therefore not something we can fix.

Second, it's important to remember that pronoun ambiguity isn't definitively wrong. Instead, your litmus test is whether there's something the pronoun could logically refer to.

So maybe your first thought is, "Hold on a minute, countries can't be found in the lower 48 states!" In that case, you shouldn't automatically assume the pronoun is incorrect. Instead, you'd want to keep searching to see if there were a more logical antecedent elsewhere. In (A), (B), and (C), there's no other plural noun that could work with "them," so on this basis, you could eliminate those options. But once you see "wolves" in (D) and (E), you'd accept that "them" has a reasonable referent and move on to other issues.

I hope that clears things up!
avatar
psls
avatar
Joined: 27 Jan 2021
Last visit: 12 Dec 2023
Posts: 32
Own Kudos:
9
Given Kudos: 131
Posts: 32
Kudos: 9
Once numbering in the millions worldwide, it is estimated that the wol Updated on: 29 Apr 2021, 06:12
Originally posted by psls on 28 Apr 2021, 09:06.
Last edited by psls on 29 Apr 2021, 06:12, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Dear Experts,

GMATNinja mikemcgarry

Please clarify my misunderstanding in Modifier.

Quote:
Once numbering in the millions worldwide, it is estimated that the wolf has declined to 200,000 in 57 countries, some 11,000 of them to be found in the lower 48 United States and Alaska.


(A) it is estimated that the wolf has declined to 200,000 in 57 countries, some
(B) the wolf is estimated to have declined to 200,000 in 57 countries, with approximately
(C) the wolf has declined to an estimate of 200,000 in 57 countries, some
(D) wolves have declined to an estimate of 200,000 in 57 countries, with approximately
(E) wolves have declined to an estimated 200,000 in 57 countries, some
Show more

I immediately chose choice(A) without concerning other parts (that's not good :cry: ), since I thought the other choices, "Once numbering ... , wolves ...", incorrectly modify main subject.
"wolves is numbering themselves" sounds weird for me.

IMO, it should be "Once numbered ... , wolves ..."

Can you provide light for me?

Thanks
-tor
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,108
Own Kudos:
32,884
 [1]
Given Kudos: 700
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,108
Kudos: 32,884
 [1]
Once numbering in the millions worldwide, it is estimated that the wol 28 Apr 2021, 14:30
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TorGmatGod
Dear Experts,


Please clarify my misunderstanding in Modifier.


I immediately chose choice(A) without concerning other parts (that's not good TT), since I thought the other choices, "Once numbering ... , wolves ...", incorrectly modify main subject.
"wolves is numbering themselves" is sound weird for me.

IMO, it should be "Once numbered ... , wolves ..."

Can you provide light for me?

Thanks
-tor
Show more


Hello TorGmatGod,
Please allow me to help you with this query. :-)


The verb-ing modified that appears right at the beginning of the sentence can modify either just the subject of the following main clause or the action in that clause. In both cases, this verb-ing modifier MUST logically connect with the subject because the modifier denotes an action that MUST have a doer. In this case, the subject acts as the doer of the modifier action.

Yes, it does make sense to say that wolves once numbered in millions worldwide. The expression wolves numbering in millions = wolves that numbered in millions. The wolved did the action of numbering. So, this usage is correct.

Moreover, Choices A, B, and C are incorrect because the plural pronoun "them" in the non-underlined portion of the sentence does not agree in number with the singular noun "the wolf".

Again, the main clause in Choice A must start with the entity that once numbered in the millions. But this structure is not there in Choice A.


Hope this helps. :-)
Thanks.
Shraddha
User avatar
ExpertsGlobal5
User avatar
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,194
Own Kudos:
4,762
 [2]
Given Kudos: 43
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,194
Kudos: 4,762
 [2]
Once numbering in the millions worldwide, it is estimated that the wol 10 Nov 2021, 05:47
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TorGmatGod
Dear Experts,

GMATNinja mikemcgarry

Please clarify my misunderstanding in Modifier.

Quote:
Once numbering in the millions worldwide, it is estimated that the wolf has declined to 200,000 in 57 countries, some 11,000 of them to be found in the lower 48 United States and Alaska.


(A) it is estimated that the wolf has declined to 200,000 in 57 countries, some
(B) the wolf is estimated to have declined to 200,000 in 57 countries, with approximately
(C) the wolf has declined to an estimate of 200,000 in 57 countries, some
(D) wolves have declined to an estimate of 200,000 in 57 countries, with approximately
(E) wolves have declined to an estimated 200,000 in 57 countries, some

I immediately chose choice(A) without concerning other parts (that's not good :cry: ), since I thought the other choices, "Once numbering ... , wolves ...", incorrectly modify main subject.
"wolves is numbering themselves" sounds weird for me.

IMO, it should be "Once numbered ... , wolves ..."

Can you provide light for me?

Thanks
-tor
Show more

Hello TorGmatGod,

We hope this finds you well.

Having gone through the question and your query, we believe we can resolve your doubt.

The use of the present participle ("verb+ing") phrase "Once numbering..." to modify "wolves" conveys that over a period of time in the past, there were millions of wolved worldwide; this construction "numbering in the + number X" or simply "numbering + number X" simply means that there are X number of the relevant noun. If the past participle construction "numbered" was used to modify "wolves" it would change the meaning, incorrectly implying that at some point in the past, someone counted the wolves and concluded that there were millions of them.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
User avatar
Crytiocanalyst
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2021
Last visit: 27 May 2023
Posts: 950
Own Kudos:
208
Given Kudos: 309
Posts: 950
Kudos: 208
Once numbering in the millions worldwide, it is estimated that the wol 12 Nov 2021, 00:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AbdurRakib
Once numbering in the millions worldwide, it is estimated that the wolf has declined to 200,000 in 57 countries, some 11,000 of them to be found in the lower 48 United States and Alaska.
Show more


(A) it is estimated that the wolf has declined to 200,000 in 57 countries, some
wolves is the right usage therefore out

(B) the wolf is estimated to have declined to 200,000 in 57 countries, with approximately
wolves should be the right usage therefore out

(C) the wolf has declined to an estimate of 200,000 in 57 countries, some
Similar reasoning as B

(D) wolves have declined to an estimate of 200,000 in 57 countries, with approximately
with is associated with something which doesn't make any sense here therefore out

(E) wolves have declined to an estimated 200,000 in 57 countries, some
THe meaningis perfect therefore let us hang on to it


THerefore IMO E
User avatar
Dinesh654
User avatar
Joined: 08 Jun 2021
Last visit: 11 Aug 2024
Posts: 155
Own Kudos:
9
Given Kudos: 217
Status:In learning mode...
Location: India
GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27
Posts: 155
Kudos: 9
Once numbering in the millions worldwide, it is estimated that the wol 03 May 2022, 05:52
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
teaserbae
Hello experts,
GMATNinja aragonn AjiteshArun Skywalker18

I have read the above explaination but I am still not clear and confused between option D and E ?
How do we realize that noun + noun modifier is required and with approximately is wrong ?
Moreover what's wrong with to an estimate of 20000 ... ?
Here's (D) again:

Quote:
(D) wolves have declined to an estimate of 200,000 in 57 countries, with approximately
First, it's strange to claim that the population of wolves animals has declined to an estimate rather than an estimated number. Also, typically when we have a construction that uses a clause + "with", "with _______" will modify the previous verb. For example, "I ran for several miles with great intensity." In this case "with great intensity" describes how I "ran."

In (D) the verb preceding "with" is "declined." It makes no sense for wolves to decline "with approximately 11,000 of them." One could run with 11,000 wolves. (Not recommended.) One could dine with 11,000 wolves. (Ditto.) But declining with 11,000 wolves? That's clearly wrong.

I hope that helps!
Show more

Thanks, such a nice explanation,
however, I remember somewhere you said ",with" can modify either verb or close noun or whichever makes sense.
here I knew with modifying verb doesn't make sense!
so I took a long breadth, I saw countries, thats illogical and then i came to 200,000-- aha, it make sense.
now like E, its modifying 200,000.
with is flexible it can modify noun right?

also as a non native, there is no way I can understand between "an estimate of" and "estimated"
why exactly "an estimate of" is wrong? apart from awkwardness
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,780
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,780
 [2]
Once numbering in the millions worldwide, it is estimated that the wol 19 May 2022, 12:56
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
dcoolguy
GMATNinja
teaserbae
Hello experts,
GMATNinja aragonn AjiteshArun Skywalker18

I have read the above explaination but I am still not clear and confused between option D and E ?
How do we realize that noun + noun modifier is required and with approximately is wrong ?
Moreover what's wrong with to an estimate of 20000 ... ?
Here's (D) again:

Quote:
(D) wolves have declined to an estimate of 200,000 in 57 countries, with approximately
First, it's strange to claim that the population of wolves animals has declined to an estimate rather than an estimated number. Also, typically when we have a construction that uses a clause + "with", "with _______" will modify the previous verb. For example, "I ran for several miles with great intensity." In this case "with great intensity" describes how I "ran."

In (D) the verb preceding "with" is "declined." It makes no sense for wolves to decline "with approximately 11,000 of them." One could run with 11,000 wolves. (Not recommended.) One could dine with 11,000 wolves. (Ditto.) But declining with 11,000 wolves? That's clearly wrong.

I hope that helps!

Thanks, such a nice explanation,
however, I remember somewhere you said ",with" can modify either verb or close noun or whichever makes sense.
here I knew with modifying verb doesn't make sense!
so I took a long breadth, I saw countries, thats illogical and then i came to 200,000-- aha, it make sense.
now like E, its modifying 200,000.
with is flexible it can modify noun right?

{...}
Show more
I think you're referring to this post, in which we explain that "with" can be used to modify the action OR to indicate that one thing or person is accompanied by another. Note that in the latter case, the "with" still modifies the action. For example:

    "Tim fought with a kitten named Ron."

Here, the phrase "with a kitten named Ron" definitely tells us more about the action ("fought").

But neither of those interpretations makes sense in (D), since the 200,000 wolves clearly weren't "accompanied" by a separate group of 11,000 in the US. So instead you chose to treat the "with" as an adjective, describing the 200,000 wolves themselves. And using "with" to modify a noun can certainly work. Here, have a few more examples:

  • "Tim stumbled upon 200,000 wolves with pink fur and top hats." - A little strange, but the things in bold are certainly things that wolves could possess (at least in our imaginations).
  • "Tim wants to date someone with a great sense of humor." - This makes sense because "a great sense of humor" is certainly something that a person can possess.

So what does it mean to say that there are 200,000 wolves with 11,000 of the wolves to be found in the lower 48 United States and Alaska? Are "11,000 of the wolves to be found in the lower 48 United States and Alaska" something that the 200,000 wolves have or possess? Not really. The 11,000 are a subset of those 200,000, not something that the 200,000 have.

And I think this points to a broader issue: the goal of SC isn't to come up with a nice clean algorithm of grammar rules. This is a reasoning test, not a grammar test, so you have to just think really hard about what each sentence is saying and whether it makes sense. I would never expect someone to reject (D) just because of the "with" usage, but the wording in (E) makes more sense, giving us a vote against (D).

dcoolguy

{...}
also as a non native, there is no way I can understand between "an estimate of" and "estimated"
why exactly "an estimate of" is wrong? apart from awkwardness
Show more
In choice (E), "estimated" is just a modifier. If we strip it out, the sentence still works:

    "Once numbering in the millions worldwide, wolves have declined to 200,000."

This is fine, right? It makes a whole lot of sense for millions of wolves to decline to a certain (smaller) number of wolves (200,000).

In choice (D), however, "of 200,000" is the modifier. If we strip that out, we get:

    "Once numbering in the millions worldwide, wolves have declined to an estimate."

An estimate is an approximation or an educated guess (made by some unknown person(s), in this case). So millions of wolves became... a guess made by some unknown person(s)? That's not quite right. The millions of wolves didn't become a guess. Instead, the millions of wolves became 200,000 wolves.

Again, the goal isn't to come up with some black-and-white rules regarding "an estimate of" and "estimated". The goal is to think, "Does it make more sense for a huge number of wolves to become a much smaller number of wolves OR for a huge number of wolves to become an estimate itself (i.e. an educated guess)?" That's a pretty tough decision point, but it gives us another nudge in favor of (E).

I hope that helps!
User avatar
GmatKnightTutor
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 31 Jan 2020
Last visit: 01 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,228
Own Kudos:
1,568
Given Kudos: 18
Posts: 5,228
Kudos: 1,568
Once numbering in the millions worldwide, it is estimated that the wol 31 May 2022, 08:00
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
TheUltimateWinner
avatar
Schools: Harvard '24 Judge '23 LBS '24 McCombs '24 Mendoza Tepper '24 Ross '24 Cox Marshall '24 Fisher Kelley '24 Jones McDonough '24 Owen '24 Terry BU Simon '24 Katz GWU Mason Babson Gabelli Foster '24 Goizueta '24 Scheller Stern '23 CBS '23 Booth '23 Haas '25 Wharton '25 Stanford '26 Johnson'23 Fuqua '23 Kellogg '23 Kenan-Flagler'23 INSEAD Aug 22 intake Olin '23 Said '23 Sloan '23 Carey Arizona "22 Yale '23 UC Davis Madison '23 Anderson '23 Carroll Carlson '23 Darden '23
Posts: 2,489
Kudos: 2,387
Once numbering in the millions worldwide, it is estimated that the wol 04 Dec 2022, 12:18
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
Once numbering in the millions worldwide, it is estimated that the wolf has declined to 200,000 in 57 countries, some 11,000 of them to be found in the lower 48 United States and Alaska.

(A) it is estimated that the wolf has declined to 200,000 in 57 countries, some
(B) the wolf is estimated to have declined to 200,000 in 57 countries, with approximately
(C) the wolf has declined to an estimate of 200,000 in 57 countries, some
(D) wolves have declined to an estimate of 200,000 in 57 countries, with approximately
(E) wolves have declined to an estimated 200,000 in 57 countries, some
Show more
RonPurewal
Hi, I read an 'with' issue that is written by you in ManhattanPrep forum, but I forgot that thread. Can you explain a bit here for 'with' issue, please?
avatar
TheUltimateWinner
avatar
Schools: Harvard '24 Judge '23 LBS '24 McCombs '24 Mendoza Tepper '24 Ross '24 Cox Marshall '24 Fisher Kelley '24 Jones McDonough '24 Owen '24 Terry BU Simon '24 Katz GWU Mason Babson Gabelli Foster '24 Goizueta '24 Scheller Stern '23 CBS '23 Booth '23 Haas '25 Wharton '25 Stanford '26 Johnson'23 Fuqua '23 Kellogg '23 Kenan-Flagler'23 INSEAD Aug 22 intake Olin '23 Said '23 Sloan '23 Carey Arizona "22 Yale '23 UC Davis Madison '23 Anderson '23 Carroll Carlson '23 Darden '23
Posts: 2,489
Kudos: 2,387
Once numbering in the millions worldwide, it is estimated that the wol 04 Dec 2022, 12:26
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mikemcgarry
warriorguy
Thanks for the explanation Mike. It takes (to read) at least 2-3 times, minimum, to understand your post given it is laded with so many terms. I had a query: Could we eliminate options B & C on the basis that second part of the sentence uses them (plural) and first part uses wolf (singular). My POE between D and E was estimate of 2L vs estimated 2L. Is the above reasoning correct?
Dear warriorguy,

I'm happy to respond. :-)

As for your question about (B) & (C), I would say that I am not sure. You see, it's common in English to name an animal in the singular and mean the entire species, which implies a plural. I would say that this a shade of gray---not 100% right, but not wrong enough to be the sole justification for eliminating an answer.

I think it's important to understand how bad the "with approximately" structure is in (B) & (D). That's the real problem with those two.

The phrase from (D), "wolves have declined to an estimate of 200,000," is not bad. The corresponding phrase in (E) is more elegant, but again, this slight difference would not provide the sole justification for eliminating (D).

My friend, I am going to recommend this blog article to you:
How to Improve Your GMAT Verbal Score

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
Show more
I think, there is no chance to be the 'wolf' as plural as the plural of 'wolf' is 'wolves', according to Cambridge Dictionary. It is always in singular version. Can you explain the issue, expert?
User avatar
ashutosh_73
User avatar
Joined: 19 Jan 2018
Last visit: 30 Oct 2024
Posts: 234
Own Kudos:
1,636
Given Kudos: 86
Location: India
Posts: 234
Kudos: 1,636
Once numbering in the millions worldwide, it is estimated that the wol 12 Jul 2023, 22:41
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
egmat
TorGmatGod
Dear Experts,


Please clarify my misunderstanding in Modifier.


I immediately chose choice(A) without concerning other parts (that's not good TT), since I thought the other choices, "Once numbering ... , wolves ...", incorrectly modify main subject.
"wolves is numbering themselves" is sound weird for me.

IMO, it should be "Once numbered ... , wolves ..."

Can you provide light for me?

Thanks
-tor


Hello TorGmatGod,
Please allow me to help you with this query. :-)


The verb-ing modified that appears right at the beginning of the sentence can modify either just the subject of the following main clause or the action in that clause. In both cases, this verb-ing modifier MUST logically connect with the subject because the modifier denotes an action that MUST have a doer. In this case, the subject acts as the doer of the modifier action.

Yes, it does make sense to say that wolves once numbered in millions worldwide. The expression wolves numbering in millions = wolves that numbered in millions. The wolved did the action of numbering. So, this usage is correct.

Moreover, Choices A, B, and C are incorrect because the plural pronoun "them" in the non-underlined portion of the sentence does not agree in number with the singular noun "the wolf".

Again, the main clause in Choice A must start with the entity that once numbered in the millions. But this structure is not there in Choice A.


Hope this helps. :-)
Thanks.
Shraddha
Show more



Hi GMATNinja egmat,

Below is the correct sentence, but i am not able to understand how ''numbering'' is correctly modifying the noun- wolves and the verb- declined. After all, wolves are not doing the numbering part, right? They are rather the object of numbering.

Once numbering in the millions worldwide, wolves have declined to an estimated 200,000 in 57 countries, some 11,000 of them to be found in the lower 48 United States and Alaska.

Thanks!
   1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts