There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the si

Hi GMAT Experts, GMATNinja

Can anyone please help explain why is the FANBOYS rule not applicable in the case of option A? The bold part of the below sentence won't be treated as an independent clause?

There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

Thank you!

Hi Apoorv, the portion you have put in bold, is actually not an Independent clause! It is called an absolute modifier (noun + noun modifier).

You can watch our video on Absolute modifiers.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses Absolute modifier, its application and examples in significant detail. If you or someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.
_________________

Is this what is known as an appositive or is that different?

Hi Ashish,EducationAisle

i have few queries.
Is monkfish not a singular noun in this sentence?
Is the construction "There are no limits on the the size of monkfish......" main clause and "as there are for cod and haddock" a subordinate clause?
Please help.

Thanks
_________________

Hi sonusaini1
I will try to answer your query.
1. Monkfish is plural noun.
Such a noun is called a plurale tantum. For example, glasses, pants, and scissors are all defective nouns because they have no singular form.

2. Yes, you can consider it as sub-ordinate clause.

Hope this helps

Yes, exactly. In the Che Guevara example, the phrase "a man who changed the course of history..." is a noun phrase that modifies another noun (Che Guevara), and that's exactly what an appositive does.

Don't worry too much about the terminology, though -- I've been teaching the GMAT for longer than I want to admit (NO REALLY, I'M STILL 29!!), and I don't think I've ever used the word "appositive" during a GMAT lesson. As long as you understand the logical function of the phrase, you're all good.
_________________

I agree. I eliminated option A because couldn't find reference to their, since the sentence said size of monkfish and not monkfish.How do i avoid this and request someone to provide some clarity to think in future. Thanks

Even you reject A at first time, you can come back to A after realizing other choices have obvious errors.

No compromises with B,D,E : unlike should be Noun-Noun comparison (here it logically compares size with cod or haddock
Now you are left with C: When you read C you will realize the mistake:

Immediately alert: that its is wrong

Now you would find A can be checked again

you can realize , A can be re-read as :
There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught as there are for (size of) cod and haddock,, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing
A and B went to their school. ( their is right to refer A and B )
So you still have some reasoning to choose A and strong reasons to reject B,C,D and E.

hence A becomes the BEST CHOICE among available options.

I hope it helps.

Can we not make the argument that even though 'their' intends to take monkfish as its antecedent that, that still doesn't work b/c monkfish is modifying size, not acting as a standalone noun?
_________________

There's no problem with using a pronoun to refer to the object of a preposition.

"The swarm of seagulls surrounded Tim, terrifying him with their relentless advances towards his bag of snacks."

"Seagulls" is a a plural noun (and, in case you like the jargon, the object of the preposition "of"), so we can use the plural pronoun "their" to refer to "seagulls." That's not a problem at all. "Seagulls" is still a noun, and there's no reason why a pronoun couldn't refer back to it.

Same thing with "monkfish" and "their" in choice (A) .

I hope that helps a bit!
_________________

Hi, please help me understand this question.
For option A, "a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing" is modifying what?
If it is the size of the monkfish, it does not make sense to me(size=circumstance?)
I thought it is modifying the main clause, but is it OK in GMAT even though this modifier is located far from it?

Indeed it's modifying the entire clause.

In other words, there are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught is the circumstance that the sentence is talking about.

By the way, this kind of construct is called an absolute modifier. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses absolute modifier, its application and examples in significant detail. If you or someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.
_________________

Hello GMATNinja
Thanks for the wonderful explanation here, but I have another problem with the use of their. I have read somewhere that their,they,them and it refers to complete noun not part of a noun, and in this case in option A complete noun is the size of monkfish.
I know I am a little confused with the uses, request you to shed some light on this.

Cardinal rule #1 for SC: do not invent rules!

There's no rule against using a pronoun to refer back to part of a noun phrase. If I have a "bag of potato chips," for instance, I could use "it" to refer to the "bag," or "they" to refer to the chips. Either is fine.

Same deal here. When we see "their," all we know is that the pronoun must refer to a plural noun. "Size" is singular, so that's not a candidate, and wouldn't make much sense even if it were. But "monkfish" appears to be plural and is perfectly logical in context. That's good enough to decide that the pronoun isn't an error and move on to other issues.

I hope that helps!
_________________

What role does "a circumstance that contributes to depleting them because they are being overfished." this part plays in choice A, i am confused. How is this part modifying the whole preceding clause , I eliminated A thinking it is a run on sentence. Pls help

D and E are out because of wrong comparision. C is out because monkfish doesn't contribute to a depletion. B is out because size of monfish is compared to cod or haddock. Hence A is correct choice.
_________________

We attempted to address this question in an earlier post here. We then answered follow-up questions here and here.

See if those help?
_________________

AndrewN
I've gone through the thread and though GMATNinja has given some nice replies to people, I'm still unable to wrap my head around how the collective noun "Monkfish" can be referred to by a plural pronoun "their".
Through all that I have learned so far, collective nouns are mostly singular except when their individual elements are pointed out for an action.

Rule 1: Use a singular verb when the members of the group are acting together as a unit.
The family is driving across the country this summer.
The couple eats out once a month.
The herd usually stays together.
The jury has reached a decision.
A litter of kittens was born in the shelter.

Rule 2: Use a plural verb when the members of the group are acting as individuals.
The family are each doing a different chore.
The couple are taking separate cars to work today.
The jury were allowed to go home to their families each day.
A litter of kittens have been running around the shelter making messes.

Keeping this in mind, how can Monkfish be referred to by "Thier"?
I'd say, "Monkfish is my favourite type of fish". But never would I say, "Monkfish are my favourite fishes".

What am I interpretting wrong here?

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

First off, PyjamaScientist, I would replace rule with convention. We are not talking about anything carved in stone. Also, I am hard-pressed to come up with an official SC question that follows "Rule 2"—such usage is much more common in everyday conversation, as well as in British English. (I have seen quite a few of these questions in the forum from outside parties, though, one on a former Chelsea FC goalkeeper and another on some hikers, if I recall correctly.) When I read the term collective noun, my mind races to something more like merchandise, a singular noun that refers to multiple elements. (The plural merchandises does not exist. The word (as a noun) always appears in singular form: the verb to merchandise and its subsequent conjugation merchandises, as in, She merchandises [goods]... does not count.) Words such as moose, elk, reindeer—heck, the whole deer family—and, here, fish, are those that can refer to either a single creature or multiple creatures without the addition of an "s" to denote plurality.

That said, picture an organization that owns a large aquarium, such as the New England Aquarium in Boston. Say that this organization owns many different types of fish (not just monkfish). It would be perfectly acceptable for someone to say, in keeping with the species' reputation, that monkfish are the ugliest [fish] on display. The comparison is between specimens of one species and those of all others (in the aquarium). Likewise, it would just as acceptable for that same person to say that the monkfish is the ugliest [fish] on display. Now, the comparison is between the species and all other species. Context makes the difference, and luckily, the GMAT™ will provide enough of it for a test-taker to tell whether a singular or plural agreement may be called for.

For fun, you may want to check out this list of 101 English words that are the same in singular and plural forms.

As always, thank you for thinking to ask, and good luck with your studies.

- Andrew
_________________