Last visit was: 23 Apr 2024, 12:36 It is currently 23 Apr 2024, 12:36

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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Difficulty: Sub 505 Levelx   Clausesx   Subjunctivex                     
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2011
Posts: 119
Own Kudos [?]: 1033 [101]
Given Kudos: 103
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 871
Own Kudos [?]: 8553 [51]
Given Kudos: 123
Location: United States
Send PM
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Status: enjoying
Posts: 5265
Own Kudos [?]: 42102 [48]
Given Kudos: 422
Location: India
WE:Education (Education)
Send PM
General Discussion
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Status:2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Posts: 767
Own Kudos [?]: 3944 [5]
Given Kudos: 109
Location: Peru
Concentration: Finance, SMEs, Developing countries, Public sector and non profit organizations
Schools:Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
GPA: 4.0
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Send PM
Re: A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the caribou into [#permalink]
4
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the caribou into northern Minnesota would fail if the density of the timber wolf population in that region is more numerous than one wolf for every 39 square miles.

A) would fail if the density of the timber wolf population in that region is more numerous than
B )would fail provided the density of the timber wolf population in that region is more than
C )should fail if the timber wolf density in that region was greater than
D )will fail if the density of the timber wolf population in that region is greater than
E) will fail if the timber wolf density in that region were more numerous than

There are two approachs to solve this question:

a) According to some experts, the difference between WILL and WOULD is related to the certainty of
the information expressed in the sentence. In other words, how sure is the author about that topic.
In this sentence, the expert is sure that the reintroduction of the caribou WILL fail if the timber population is greater. If he were not so sure, we would have to use WOULD.

b) According to other experts, using WILL or WOULD depends on the tense of the sentence. If the tense is present we use WILL when we refer to the future. If the tense of the sentence is past, we use WOULD when we refer to the past. It's like reported speech.

What do you think about these two approachs? IMO, the second one is the correct IN THIS SENTENCE. Because the author is reporting something that the expert said, predicted.

What do you think?
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 35
Own Kudos [?]: 40 [1]
Given Kudos: 1
Send PM
Re: A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the caribou into [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Hi sujit2k7,

To answer your question, yes, "more numerous" is different from "more than". While “more than”, as you yourself mentioned, can go with both countable and uncountable nouns, “more numerous” (meaning more in number) can’t possibly go with uncountable nouns. To take one of your examples, can you say “Plant X needs more numerous care than plant Y?” This does not make sense.

In any case, I think “more numerous” has a bit of wordiness and redundancy, and is better avoided even for countable nouns. “More” is enough to indicate greater in number.

Cheers,
Rakesh
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2012
Posts: 122
Own Kudos [?]: 478 [0]
Given Kudos: 23
GMAT Date: 11-18-2012
Send PM
Re: A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the caribou into [#permalink]
rakesh.id wrote:
Hi sujit2k7,

To answer your question, yes, "more numerous" is different from "more than". While “more than”, as you yourself mentioned, can go with both countable and uncountable nouns, “more numerous” (meaning more in number) can’t possibly go with uncountable nouns. To take one of your examples, can you say “Plant X needs more numerous care than plant Y?” This does not make sense.

In any case, I think “more numerous” has a bit of wordiness and redundancy, and is better avoided even for countable nouns. “More” is enough to indicate greater in number.

Cheers,
Rakesh


To answer your question, yes, "more numerous" is different from "more than". While “more than”, as you yourself mentioned, can go with both countable and uncountable nouns, “more numerous” (meaning more in number) can’t possibly go with uncountable nouns. To take one of your examples, can you say "Plant X needs more numerous care than plant Y?” This does not make sense.

Can you give few more examples for more numerous v/s more than?
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 02 Jun 2011
Posts: 39
Own Kudos [?]: 334 [1]
Given Kudos: 5
Send PM
Re: A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the caribou into [#permalink]
1
Kudos
sujit2k7 wrote:
OG12# 122

A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the caribou into northern Minnesota would fail if the density of the timber wolf population in that region is more numerous than one wolf for every 39 square miles.

(A) would fail if the density of the timber wolf population in that region is more numerous than
(B) would fail provided the density of the timber wolf population in that region is more than
(C) should fail if the timber wolf density in that region was greater than
(D) will fail if the density of the timber wolf population in that region is greater than
(E) will fail if the timber wolf density in that region were more numerous than

Guys I need a explanation of OG's Explanation MORE NUMEROUS THAN can't go with Uncountable Density. Greater than is required.
Is "more numerous" different from "more than".
Because "more than " I think can go with both countable and uncountable.
I need more biscuits than my brother.
Plant X needs more care than plant Y.
As per the new report muslim population is greater/more numerous than catholic population. (which one is correct )


the Construction of sentence in if then relaionship is: Present tense with future tense
Past Tense with Future tense.
So, option 'D' is clearly satisfying this condition.
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 29 Sep 2012
Posts: 2
Own Kudos [?]: [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the caribou into [#permalink]
Is not the "If" part a "Hypothetical Subjunctive"?
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 24 May 2012
Posts: 5
Own Kudos [?]: 8 [1]
Given Kudos: 13
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
Send PM
Re: A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the caribou into [#permalink]
1
Bookmarks
I believe it is not and the answer is D. In general, the Hypothetical Subjunctive is associated with unlikely or unreal circumstances. This is a prediction but does not fit the bill.
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 782
Own Kudos [?]: 2583 [0]
Given Kudos: 5
Send PM
A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the caribou into [#permalink]
Expert Reply
shivahv1 wrote:
A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the caribou into northern Minnesota would fail if the density of the timber wolf population in that region is more numerous than one wolf for every 39 square miles.

(A) would fail if the density of the timber wolf population in that region is more numerous

(B) would fail provided the density of the timber wolf population in that region is more

(C) should fail if the timber wolf density in that region was greater

(D) will fail if the density of the timber wolf population in that region is greater

(E) will fail if the timber wolf density in that region were more numerous

Is not the "If" part a "Hypothetical Subjunctive"?


The previous poster is right on. As the name suggests, the subjunctive is only used for things that haven't happen, are not happening and frankly aren't likely to happen. For example, "It would be funny if you were to wear a clown suit to work." I don't know anything about you, but it's probably safe to say that you wouldn't wear a clown suit to work. :)

In this example, we are dealing with an "expert" who is making a prediction about what is likely to happen in the future, therefore this would not use the 'hypothetical' subjunctive.

KW
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 13 Oct 2012
Posts: 12
Own Kudos [?]: 25 [0]
Given Kudos: 14
Send PM
Re: A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the caribou into [#permalink]
KyleWiddison wrote:
shivahv1 wrote:
A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the
caribou into northern Minnesota would fail if the density
of the timber wolf population in that region is more
numerous
than one wolf for every 39 square miles.

(A) would fail if the density of the timber wolf
population in that region is more numerous
(B) would fail provided the density of the timber wolf
population in that region is more
(C) should fail if the timber wolf density in that
region was greater
(D) will fail if the density of the timber wolf
population in that region is greater
(E) will fail if the timber wolf density in that region
were more numerous

Is not the "If" part a "Hypothetical Subjunctive"?


The previous poster is right on. As the name suggests, the subjunctive is only used for things that haven't happen, are not happening and frankly aren't likely to happen. For example, "It would be funny if you were to wear a clown suit to work." I don't know anything about you, but it's probably safe to say that you wouldn't wear a clown suit to work. :)

In this example, we are dealing with an "expert" who is making a prediction about what is likely to happen in the future, therefore this would not use the 'hypothetical' subjunctive.

KW



Hi Kyle

I chose E over D on the the following points and I would like to know your opinion.

Greater than - this is used while comparing two different things, for example, the deficit level of state X is greater than that of state y
More than - this is used while talking about the increase in the same parameter, for example, the deficit level of state x is now more than double of what it was last year.

I presumed, perhaps foolishly, that "more numerous than" is a sub category of "more than". Was this a wrong assumption to make?

I also feel that "were" is usually used to provide an alternate reality for the present. "If I were a rich man.." I am not a rich man right now but if I were a rich man now....
"We will treat this issue as if were trivial and plan accordingly" The issue is in fact quite serious but we will treat it as a trivial one.

The expert is not making a hypothetical case in which the population timber wolf is less than 1/39 sq miles but rather he is talking about a possible conceivable future in which the population could go beyond 1/39 sq miles. Therefore were can not be used here.

Hence I was stuck between a problem in each D and E and I chose E over D. Perhaps my "greater than" issue is in fact a non-issue.
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 782
Own Kudos [?]: 2583 [1]
Given Kudos: 5
Send PM
Re: A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the caribou into [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
harkabir wrote:
KyleWiddison wrote:
shivahv1 wrote:
A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the
caribou into northern Minnesota would fail if the density
of the timber wolf population in that region is more
numerous
than one wolf for every 39 square miles.

(A) would fail if the density of the timber wolf
population in that region is more numerous
(B) would fail provided the density of the timber wolf
population in that region is more
(C) should fail if the timber wolf density in that
region was greater
(D) will fail if the density of the timber wolf
population in that region is greater
(E) will fail if the timber wolf density in that region
were more numerous

Is not the "If" part a "Hypothetical Subjunctive"?


The previous poster is right on. As the name suggests, the subjunctive is only used for things that haven't happen, are not happening and frankly aren't likely to happen. For example, "It would be funny if you were to wear a clown suit to work." I don't know anything about you, but it's probably safe to say that you wouldn't wear a clown suit to work. :)

In this example, we are dealing with an "expert" who is making a prediction about what is likely to happen in the future, therefore this would not use the 'hypothetical' subjunctive.

KW



Hi Kyle

I chose E over D on the the following points and I would like to know your opinion.

Greater than - this is used while comparing two different things, for example, the deficit level of state X is greater than that of state y
More than - this is used while talking about the increase in the same parameter, for example, the deficit level of state x is now more than double of what it was last year.

I presumed, perhaps foolishly, that "more numerous than" is a sub category of "more than". Was this a wrong assumption to make?

I also feel that "were" is usually used to provide an alternate reality for the present. "If I were a rich man.." I am not a rich man right now but if I were a rich man now....
"We will treat this issue as if were trivial and plan accordingly" The issue is in fact quite serious but we will treat it as a trivial one.

The expert is not making a hypothetical case in which the population timber wolf is less than 1/39 sq miles but rather he is talking about a possible conceivable future in which the population could go beyond 1/39 sq miles. Therefore were can not be used here.

Hence I was stuck between a problem in each D and E and I chose E over D. Perhaps my "greater than" issue is in fact a non-issue.


In this case, "greater than" and "more than" are almost certainly viewed as synonymous comparison terms. If you look closely, you are really dealing with "greater than" and "more numerous than", and in both cases the phrases properly compare a future state against the stated benchmark. So yes, your assumption about greater than/more than was off. For GMAT comparisons questions, you will see errors/splits on the things being compared (comparing things illogically) or you will see obvious errors in the comparison phrases ("more as" instead of "more than").

Your analysis of is/were is right on. These verb tense splits are very often tested on the GMAT, so for this problem you should have picked the answer choice that got the verb tense correct.

KW
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 13 Oct 2012
Posts: 12
Own Kudos [?]: 25 [0]
Given Kudos: 14
Send PM
Re: A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the caribou into [#permalink]
KyleWiddison wrote:
harkabir wrote:
shivahv1 wrote:
A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the
caribou into northern Minnesota would fail if the density
of the timber wolf population in that region is more
numerous
than one wolf for every 39 square miles.

(A) would fail if the density of the timber wolf
population in that region is more numerous
(B) would fail provided the density of the timber wolf
population in that region is more
(C) should fail if the timber wolf density in that
region was greater
(D) will fail if the density of the timber wolf
population in that region is greater
(E) will fail if the timber wolf density in that region
were more numerous

Is not the "If" part a "Hypothetical Subjunctive"?


Hi Kyle

I chose E over D on the the following points and I would like to know your opinion.

Greater than - this is used while comparing two different things, for example, the deficit level of state X is greater than that of state y
More than - this is used while talking about the increase in the same parameter, for example, the deficit level of state x is now more than double of what it was last year.

I presumed, perhaps foolishly, that "more numerous than" is a sub category of "more than". Was this a wrong assumption to make?

I also feel that "were" is usually used to provide an alternate reality for the present. "If I were a rich man.." I am not a rich man right now but if I were a rich man now....
"We will treat this issue as if were trivial and plan accordingly" The issue is in fact quite serious but we will treat it as a trivial one.

The expert is not making a hypothetical case in which the population timber wolf is less than 1/39 sq miles but rather he is talking about a possible conceivable future in which the population could go beyond 1/39 sq miles. Therefore were can not be used here.

Hence I was stuck between a problem in each D and E and I chose E over D. Perhaps my "greater than" issue is in fact a non-issue.


In this case, "greater than" and "more than" are almost certainly viewed as synonymous comparison terms. If you look closely, you are really dealing with "greater than" and "more numerous than", and in both cases the phrases properly compare a future state against the stated benchmark. So yes, your assumption about greater than/more than was off. For GMAT comparisons questions, you will see errors/splits on the things being compared (comparing things illogically) or you will see obvious errors in the comparison phrases ("more as" instead of "more than").

Your analysis of is/were is right on. These verb tense splits are very often tested on the GMAT, so for this problem you should have picked the answer choice that got the verb tense correct.

KW



Thanks a lot Kyle and a kudos to go with the appreciation. Your corroboration helps my confidence. If you have a little time could you give me two examples each of the correct usage of greater than and more numerous than. It will help me immensely. Thanks again :)
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 782
Own Kudos [?]: 2583 [1]
Given Kudos: 5
Send PM
Re: A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the caribou into [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
Happy to help. Here are a few quick examples:

The waste material was rejected because the known carcinogen content was greater than 1 part per million
The waste material was rejected because the known carcinogen content was more numerous than 1 part per million.

My candy intake is greater than 2 pieces per day.
My candy intake is more numerous than 2 pieces per day.

With these examples you see that both are probably fine, but the "greater than" examples seem to have a more sensible (or understandable) meaning. In both cases, the comparison doesn't really compare to things, but rather they compare something against a benchmark (1 part per million, 2 pieces per day).

Hope that helps!

KW
Director
Director
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 530
Own Kudos [?]: 523 [1]
Given Kudos: 916
Send PM
Re: A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the caribou into [#permalink]
1
Kudos
whenever we see "if" we have to check weather the form of "will" or "no will" is correct.

there are 4 kinds

if do, then do: this is a fact not hypothetic

if do, then will do
if did, then would do
if had done, then would/could have done

there 3 kind is about hypotheticl not fact. we do not need to know the difference among 3 kinds because gmat can not test us on this point. just to know that last 3 kinds are about hypothetic action and the first one is a fact.

only knowing this point can allow us to go to oa.

second point
we never use physical description for some thing which can be measured by unit. density is 3 persons/m2, which can be measured and can not be described with "numerous" which is physical description. "greater" is used with number and so is correct.
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Status: enjoying
Posts: 5265
Own Kudos [?]: 42102 [4]
Given Kudos: 422
Location: India
WE:Education (Education)
Send PM
Re: A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the caribou into [#permalink]
2
Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the caribou into northern Minnesota would fail if the density of the timber wolf population in that region is more numerous than one wolf for every 39 square miles.

A) would fail if the density of the timber wolf population in that region is more numerous than
B) would fail provided the density of the timber wolf population in that region is more than
C) should fail if the timber wolf density in that region was greater than
D) will fail if the density of the timber wolf population in that region is greater than
E) will fail if the timber wolf density in that region were more numerous than

This belongs to the first category conditional, where you use a present tense in the 'if' clause and a simple present or a simple future in the ‘then’ clause. We can conveniently ignore A, B and C for using the modal verb ' would ' and 'should'. Between D and E, we can eliminate E for using a countable ‘more numerous’ rather than the ‘greater’ for an obvious mass noun namely ‘density’
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 12 Sep 2015
Posts: 6821
Own Kudos [?]: 29891 [5]
Given Kudos: 799
Location: Canada
Send PM
Re: A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the caribou into [#permalink]
3
Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
Top Contributor
BukrsGmat wrote:
A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the caribou into northern Minnesota would fail if the density of the timber wolf population in that region is more numerous than one wolf for every 39 square miles.

(A) would fail if the density of the timber wolf population in that region is more numerous than
(B) would fail provided the density of the timber wolf population in that region is more than
(C) should fail if the timber wolf density in that region was greater than
(D) will fail if the density of the timber wolf population in that region is greater than
(E) will fail if the timber wolf density in that region were more numerous than


For conditional (if X then Y) questions, you need to have corresponding tenses, depending on whether you have a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd conditional.
1st conditional: If X happens, then Y will happen
2nd conditional: If X happened, then Y would happen
3rd conditional: If X had happened, then Y would have happened


A) would fail if the density of the timber wolf population in that region is more numerous than
(the verb tenses here do not match any of the above structures)
ELIMINATE

B) would fail provided the density of the timber wolf population in that region is more than
(the verb tenses here do not match any of the above structures)
ELIMINATE

C) shuld fail if the timber wolf density in that region was greater than
"Should" changes the meaning.
ELIMINATE

D) will fail if the density of the timber wolf population in that region is greater than
(the verb tenses here match the structure of a 1st conditional)
KEEP!

E) will fail if the timber wolf density in that region were more numerous than
(the verb tenses here do not match any of the above structures)
ELIMINATE


Answer: D

Cheers,
Brent

Originally posted by BrentGMATPrepNow on 13 Mar 2018, 12:39.
Last edited by BrentGMATPrepNow on 09 May 2018, 11:26, edited 1 time in total.
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 27 Oct 2017
Posts: 1907
Own Kudos [?]: 5578 [1]
Given Kudos: 236
WE:General Management (Education)
Send PM
Re: A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the caribou into [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
D) will fail if the density of the timber wolf population in that region is greater than
(the verb tenses here match the structure of a 2nd conditional)
Did you mean, 1st conditional?

GMATPrepNow wrote:
BukrsGmat wrote:
A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the caribou into northern Minnesota would fail if the density of the timber wolf population in that region is more numerous than one wolf for every 39 square miles.

(A) would fail if the density of the timber wolf population in that region is more numerous than
(B) would fail provided the density of the timber wolf population in that region is more than
(C) should fail if the timber wolf density in that region was greater than
(D) will fail if the density of the timber wolf population in that region is greater than
(E) will fail if the timber wolf density in that region were more numerous than


For conditional (if X then Y) questions, you need to have corresponding tenses, depending on whether you have a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd conditional.
1st conditional: If X happens, then Y will happen
2nd conditional: If X happened, then Y would happen
3rd conditional: If X had happened, then Y would have happened


A) would fail if the density of the timber wolf population in that region is more numerous than
(the verb tenses here do not match any of the above structures)
ELIMINATE

B) would fail provided the density of the timber wolf population in that region is more than
(the verb tenses here do not match any of the above structures)
ELIMINATE

C) shuld fail if the timber wolf density in that region was greater than
"Should" changes the meaning.
ELIMINATE

D) will fail if the density of the timber wolf population in that region is greater than
(the verb tenses here match the structure of a 2nd conditional)
Did you mean, 1st conditional?
KEEP!

E) will fail if the timber wolf density in that region were more numerous than
(the verb tenses here do not match any of the above structures)
ELIMINATE


Answer: D

Cheers,
Brent
Intern
Intern
Joined: 30 Apr 2018
Posts: 4
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 4
Location: India
Send PM
Re: A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the caribou into [#permalink]
Please clarify more. First conditional specifies that there is no uncertainty. But the sentence says, "... Predicts....",which shows uncertainty. Will that not be a contradiction?

Sent from my Redmi 3S using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 12 Sep 2015
Posts: 6821
Own Kudos [?]: 29891 [0]
Given Kudos: 799
Location: Canada
Send PM
Re: A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the caribou into [#permalink]
Expert Reply
Top Contributor
gmatbusters wrote:
D) will fail if the density of the timber wolf population in that region is greater than
(the verb tenses here match the structure of a 2nd conditional)
Did you mean, 1st conditional?


Good catch!
Yes, I meant 1st conditional.
I've edited my response accordingly.

Cheers,
Brent
GMAT Club Bot
Re: A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the caribou into [#permalink]
 1   2   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6917 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne