dcoolguy wrote:
GMATNinja wrote:
teaserbae wrote:
Hello experts,
GMATNinja aragonn AjiteshArun Skywalker18I 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?
{...}
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 wrote:
{...}
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
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!
_________________
GMAT/GRE/EA tutors @
www.gmatninja.com (
hiring!) |
YouTube |
Articles |
IG Beginners' Guides:
RC |
CR |
SC |
Complete Resource Compilations:
RC |
CR |
SC YouTube LIVE webinars:
all videos by topic +
24-hour marathon for UkraineQuestion Explanation Collections:
RC |
CR |
SC