Once numbering in the millions worldwide, it is estimated that the wol

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…


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).


(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).


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:

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).
_________________

Dear AbdurRakib,
I'm happy to respond.

First, let look at what happens after the last comma. We have an absolute phrase: the form of an absolute phrase is [noun] + [noun modifier]. As the name suggests, the absolute phrase stands on its own: it provides information for the whole of the attached sentence with modifying any particular work, and its grammatical structure is independent of the rest of the sentence. After the comma, we get the correct absolute phrase
some 11,000 of them to be found . . . .
The noun phrase is "some 11,000 of them," and here, the noun modifier is the passive infinitive "to be found." The absolute phrase is elegant. Rhetorically, it is a spineless mealy-mouthed move to replace this elegant structure with an awkward prepositional phrase "with approximately 11,000 of them to be found . . ." Technically, this is grammatically correct, but its a bit awkward and wordy, and it looks like a craven misfit compared to the absolute phrase.

Incidentally, the use of "some" in this context is as a synonym for "approximately." Other examples:
I read that book some fifteen years ago.
He ate some eight pieces of chicken that night.
This usage appears frequently in sophisticated English.

Now, what comes before that second comma. The phrasing "declined to an estimate of 200,000" is awkward and clumsy: both (C) & (D) use this and should be eliminated because of it.

Before the first comma, we have a modifying phrase "once numbering in the millions worldwide," and this phrase needs to touch the noun it modifies. The indirect structure in (A) delays the target noun in an awkward way, so (A) is incorrect.

This leaves (B) & (E). Choice (B) is passive and indirect and wordy, and has that awful preposition after the final comma. By contrast, (E) is powerful and direct:
. . . wolves have declined to an estimated 200,000 . . .
The estimation part is simply about the size of the number, the mathematical details of the sentence: that's not where the main action is, so "estimate" or "is estimated" is should not be the main verb. The main action that happened in the real world is that "wolves have declined." That was the main action, and the main verb in the sentence should reflect the main action in the real world.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Once numbering in the millions worldwide, it is estimated that the wolf has declined to 200,000 in 57 countries, some11,000 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

“Once numbering in the millions worldwide” is a modifier that modifies the wolf/ wolves and hence must be placed right after the modifier. Eliminate A.

The non-underlined part of the sentence gives us a clue- the plural pronoun “them”. A plural pronoun will have a plural noun as its antecedent. Eliminate all options that use a singular noun- B and C.

Option D- wolves have declined to an estimate of 200,000 in 57 countries, with approximately
The adverbial modifier “with approximately” does not modify the preceding clause. Wolves have not declined with approximately 11,000….

Option E is correct- wolves have declined to an estimated 200,000 in 57 countries, some
Some 11,000 of them… is an absolute modifier that further modifies the preceding clause.
Once numbering in the millions, wolves have declined to an estimated 200,000 in 57 countries.
Further info- some11,000 of them to be found in the lower 48 United States and Alaska.

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 this sentence is that wolves once numbered in the millions worldwide, but now they have declined to an estimated 200,000 in 57 countries, and some 11,000 of them to be found in the lower 48 United States and Alaska.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Pronouns + Modifiers + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• In a “phrase + comma + noun” construction, the phrase must correctly modify the noun; this is one of the most frequently tested concepts on GMAT sentence correction.

A: The sentence formed by this answer choice incorrectly refers to the singular noun "the wolf" with the plural pronoun "them". Further, Option A incorrectly uses "Once numbering in the millions worldwide" to modify the placeholder pronoun "it", leading to an incoherent meaning; the intended meaning is that wolves once numbered in the millions worldwide; please remember, in a “phrase + comma + noun” construction, the phrase must correctly modify the noun.

B: The sentence formed by this answer choice incorrectly refers to the singular noun "the wolf" with the plural pronoun "them". Further, Option B uses the needlessly wordy phrase "with approximately...Alaska", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

C: The sentence formed by this answer choice incorrectly refers to the singular noun "the wolf" with the plural pronoun "them". Further, Option C uses the phrase "declined to an estimate", leading to an incoherent meaning; the intended meaning is that wolves have declined to an estimated number of 200,000 in 57 countries.

D: This answer choice uses the phrase "declined to an estimate", leading to an incoherent meaning; the intended meaning is that wolves have declined to an estimated number of 200,000 in 57 countries. Further, Option D uses the needlessly wordy phrase "with approximately...Alaska", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

E: Correct. The sentence formed by this answer choice correctly refers to the plural noun "wolves" with the plural pronoun "them". Further, Option E correctly uses "Once numbering in the millions worldwide" to modify "wolves", conveying the intended meaning - that wolves once numbered in the millions worldwide. Additionally, Option E uses the phrase "declined to an estimated", conveying the intended meaning - that wolves have declined to an estimated number of 200,000 in 57 countries. Besides, Option E is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

Hence, E is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Phrase Comma Subject" and "Subject Comma Phrase" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team
_________________

I have seen three and now four different usages of estimate. Not sure which one to use where

1) The snake is estimated to be 30 ft long.
2) The length of snake is estimated at 30 ft.
3) The snake is measured 30 ft, an early estimate (I am not sure if this is correct one)
4) Measuring snake's length gives me an estimate of 30 ft

Can somebody confirm how to write option - 3 correctly ?

South City

Dear South City,
I'm happy to respond.

All four are perfectly correct and could appear on the GMAT as correct constructions. If it's helpful, here are some GMAT Idiom Flashcards. Let me know if you have any further questions.

Mike
_________________

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?

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

How I tried to solve this (please correct if I am wrong):

A. the wolf has declined to 200,000 --> not the wolf, but the wolf population has declined to 200,000 we are not addressing a specific wolf. Also the modifier "once numbering in the millions worldwide" must logically relate to wolf
B. Similar to A. I think the phrase wolf population would be correct here
C. Similar to A and D.
D. wolves seem correct because it addresses all wolfs. But to an estimate of 200,000 sounds awkward like if the wolves have declined to an estimate
E. Seems 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
_________________

Dear AK125,

I'm happy to respond. Unfortunately, my friend, there are some problems with your logic.

In English, it's 100% fine to use the singular name of an animal (with the definite article) to refer to the whole species: the panther, the eagle, the blue whale. In these cases, it's understood that we are not talking about an individual panther, an individual eagle, etc. Instead, we are speaking of the whole species, all the animals that fall under that biological heading. Thus, it is 100% idiomatically correct to say "it is estimated that the wolf has declined" meaning that the numbers of the entire wolf population have declined. Now, when we combine this with the numerical information and the plural pronoun in the latter part of the sentence, this is a bit unusual---a grammatical gray zone. Nevertheless, the singular use of the animal's name can represent the species as a whole.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

mh

don't get this one

I mean we can immediately eliminate A, B, and C

Wolf......... 11,000 of them

that should be clear!


For D) declined to an estimate of 200,000 is awkward


but for E) ....some 11,000 of them ??? this also sounds awkward to me

The first point to notice in this question should be ---- "Once numbering in the millions worldwide" should touch the noun that it intendeds to modify and that noun must be plural --- this rules out all options but D and E. "Estimate of " in D is acting as a verb which is not needed , so the answer is E

Hello daviddaviddavid,

I would be glad to help you with this one.

The structure some 11,000 of them to be found in the lower 48 United States and Alaska is a Noun + Noun Modifier in which some 11,000 of them = Noun and to be found in the lower 48 United States and Alaska = Noun Modifier.

The Noun + Noun Modifiers are very versatile in nature. They can refer to any noun in the preceding clause or the entire preceding clause. The modification depends on the context of the sentence.

In the correct answer choice of this official sentence, the Noun + Noun Modifier some 11,000 of them to be found in the lower 48 United States and Alaska modifies the noun wolves. Some 11,000 wolves are now found in the lower 48 United States and Alaska.

This structure is absolutely correct. Noun + Noun Modifiers are used pretty frequently in official sentences. For more details, explanation, and official examples, please our very famous article named Noun + Noun Modifiers - The most versatile modifier in the following link:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/noun-noun-modifiers-the-most-versatile-modifier-137292.html


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________

Hello sriamlan,

I am afraid to say that your reason to reject Choice D is not correct.

Choice D uses the phrase to an estimate of. This phrase is certainly not a verb. In fact, an estimate has been used as a noun in this choice.

Yes, usage of an estimate is incorrect because per choice D, wolves have declined to an estimate. This certainly makes no sense.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________

Hi GMATNinja

I don't understand the role and meaning of a part in the middle: [some 11,000 of them]-clearly noun phrase [to be found-?] [in the lower 48 United States and Alaska]-prepositional phrase

It's not a noun, it is not the purpose (adverb), and it's not a verb (otherwise this part couldn't be an absolute phrase). Is it adjective?

Thank you.

This feels like a good time to make a public service announcement regarding the usefulness of learning esoteric grammatical terms. While this can be a good way to impress (or annoy?) your friends at dinner parties, it's not necessarily a great way to study for the GMAT. You can kick all sorts of butt on SC without knowing the difference between an adverbial and an adjectival modifier, for example. And I still haven't figured out why I should care about the difference between complex and simple gerunds.

But yes, it’s perfectly reasonable to think about “to be found” the same way you would any modifying phrase. Just ask yourself what the phrase is describing: “The mongoose, known to be found in warm climates, is a delightful creature.” What is known to be found in warm climates? The mongoose. Anything that describes a noun is basically functioning as an adjective.

Is it terribly useful to know that "to be found" is an adjectival phrase comprised of an infinitive and a participle and that such a construction can be contained within an absolute phrase? Not really. (For the record: the first sentence of this paragraph makes my own eyes bleed slightly.) Those are just technical terms for concepts we understand intuitively. Our brains are wired to understand language without using obscure labels.

And your question reveals that you already understood what role "to be found" was playing. You were more confused about the terminology, and there's no reason to be terribly concerned about that.

I hope that helps. (And I'm waving in your general direction from Long Island City as I write this!)
_________________

My two cents:
Choices A,B and C are incorrect for obvious reasons: ‘Them’ in the non-underlined modifier at the end requires a plural antecedent.
That leaves Choices D and E as contenders.
IMO, there could be three reasons for choosing E over D
1) D- Wolves have declined to an estimate: “To an estimate”, as an object phrase of the sentence, does not makes sense with S+V “Wolves have declined”.
E- Wolves have declined to an estimated + figure: “an estimated” is acting as an adjective to object noun (to 200,000) and remaining S+V+O makes perfect sense “Wolves have declined to 200,000”

2) E- Subgroup Modifier “Some of them” is a correct and commonly used construction in GMAT SC.
D- ,+With mostly acts as a full clause modifier. Hence, the modifier must make sense with the subject. Choice D can be reduced to “wolves have declined, with approximately 11,000 of them”. IMO, this is murkier than E.

3) Not sure about this one, but in D, use of “estimate” with “approximate” could be classified as Redundancy error.

Firstly, thank you all experts for your replies.
I still have confusion about plural/ singular usage for the group of animals or people. Well, I understood that the wolf can mean the whole species, all the animals that fall under that biological heading => Make sense. If i understand in this way, the case i have linked here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/greatly-infl ... 82259.html, make me so confuse
The Oneida also implies to a group of people - tribes, so we should use ' plural Verb'. The French, The Americans, either. I have read quite some explanation from Manhattan, E- gmat and yours as well but not totally clear.
I am taking the exam in the end of this month. Hope to get the reply ASAP.
Once again thank you so much.

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

"comma+noun+doing/do-ed/adjective " can work as an adverb modifying the preceding clause. for example,

I have stayed at home to study gmat, with my classmate going out

so, "with approximately..." in D must modify the main clause. but this modification is not logical. we need an attributive to modify the preceding noun. choice E offers "some ..." , which can modify preceding noun. bingo.