With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods

wasn't paying close attention enough, but my issue with C is that it uses "where".
I thought "where" can ONLY refer to places, NOT a condition, situation, circumstance, or anything metaphorical. Can someone please explain?

With no natural predators and expanses of green suburban neighborhoods that allow no hunting, wildlife officials estimate the New Jersey deer population to have grown to exceed 175,000


There is no need to kneejerk on this simple question that is deceptively daunting. Just look at the modification alone. The introductory modifier should modify its most logical noun, namely 'the deer population'. cool enough?

A. With no natural predators and expanses of green suburban neighborhoods that allow no hunting, wildlife officials estimate the New Jersey deer population to have -- It is wrong to ascribe wildlife officials to the modified noun. How can wildlife official be with or without natural predators or greenery?
B. With no natural predators and with expanses of green suburban neighborhoods that do not allow hunting, wildlife officials' estimate of the deer population in New Jersey has -- The same problem as in A.

C. With no natural predators and with expanses of green suburban neighborhoods where there is no hunting, the deer population in New Jersey, wildlife officials estimate, has -- The correct modified noun and the correct choice.
D. Without natural predators and no hunting allowed in expanse of green suburban neighborhoods, New Jersey has a deer population that wildlife officials estimate to have-- New Jersey is a wrong modified noun as in A and B.

E. Without natural predators and with expanses of green neighborhoods where there is no hunting, wildlife officials in New Jersey estimate a deer population that has -- The same problem. as in all other incorrect choices.


Thus, in one stroke you are at Rome.

It may be also noted that 'to have ' is not a verb; it is as an infinitive. Hence, it does not feature sub-verb element. 'have' is the base form of the verb. You will never see 'to has' in English

Hi daagh,

I just finished one of the first mock test by GMAT and I had this as one of the question. I had used the same technique, however, I must say I beg to disagree with the explanation that you have provided the reasong being:

With no natural predators and with expanses of green suburban neighborhoods where there is no hunting: this should actually modify New Jersey. We cannot have expanses of green ... related to deer population and this can only be modifying New Jersey.

I would love if you can shed light on this. Thanks a ton! (You, along with GMATNinja, is the person I look for when seaching for answers. Thanks a lot for your explanations so far.)

We can solve this in under 10 seconds if we look at the inital phrase. In every option except C there are refering errors

A. With no natural predators and expanses of green suburban neighborhoods that allow no hunting, wildlife officials estimate the New Jersey deer population to have
B. With no natural predators and with expanses of green suburban neighborhoods that donot allow hunting, wildlife officails' estimate of deer population in New Jersey has
C. With no natural predators and with expanses of green suburban neighborhoods where there is no hunting, the Deer Population in New Jersey, wildlife officials estimate, has
D. Without natural predators and no hunting allowed in expanses of green suburban neighborhoods, New Jersey has a deer population that wildlife officials estimate to have
E. Without natural predators and with expanses of green suburban neighbourhoods where there is no hunting, wildlife officials in New Jersey estimate a deer population that has

I do not care about how the first part is written ("Without VS With no" etc...), about the grammar, but I know that this part refers to the deer population. Only C has this correct counstruct.
Take E for instance, it says that wildlife officials have no natural predators and so on... this is logically incorrect

"without natural preditors" is a modifier and as written, it modifies New Jersey, which is incorrect.

In C deer can have green expanses where hunting is not allowed therefore this is an appropriate modifier

If "without natural predators" cannot modify "New Jersey", it cannot modify "population" as well, how can population has predator?

I think it is ok to refer no predator and no hunting to New Jersey

With no natural predators and expanses of green suburban neighborhoods that allow no hunting, wildlife officials estimate the New Jersey deer population to have grown to exceed 175,000.

(A) With no natural predators and expanses of green suburban neighborhoods that allow no hunting, wildlife officials estimate the New Jersey deer population to have
(C) With no natural predators and with expanses of green suburban neighborhoods where there is no hunting, the deer population in New Jersey, wildlife officials estimate, has

In C, it is mentioned that deer population HAS GROWN . It seems the population is already gone and the meaning of estimate TO INCREASE seems to be lost .
What I mean is:
in A : estimate to have indicates it is an estimate and seems the population has grown( may not actually has grown but seems)
in C: , the deer population in New Jersey, wildlife officials estimate, has--> 1. here population has grown ( seems like it is actually happened) 2. estimate: before estimate to have grown( seems like it is grown) but now meaning is estimate that it has grown( certainly grown)

Based on this thinking, I rejected actually C.

Hi IanStewart generis ExpertsGlobal5 gmat1393 GMATGuruNY GMATNinja GMATRockstar




In C, it is mentioned that deer population HAS GROWN . It seems the population is already gone and the meaning of estimate TO INCREASE seems to be lost .
What I mean is:
in A : estimate to have indicates it is an estimate and seems the population has grown( may not actually has grown but seems)
in C: , the deer population in New Jersey, wildlife officials estimate, has--> 1. here population has grown ( seems like it is actually happened) 2. estimate: before estimate to have grown( seems like it is grown) but now meaning is estimate that it has grown( certainly grown)

Based on this thinking, I rejected actually C.

Please give your opinion.

I don't quite follow what you're saying, but it's possible you're not using the correct definition of "estimate". You seem to be attaching the word "estimate" to the phrase "has grown", and interpreting the meaning as "officials guess the population has grown". But "estimate" means something like "make a numerical approximation", and the only "estimate" in the sentence is the 175,000 figure at the end.

There is not an important distinction between A and C in how the two choices use the word "estimate". Answer A is decisively wrong because of how it uses modifiers: "With no natural predators... wildlife officials...". The sentence is not trying to say that wildlife officials have no natural predators, so answer A cannot be correct.

C. With no natural predators and with expanses of green suburban neighborhoods where there is no hunting, the Deer Population in New Jersey, wildlife officials estimate, has

( In summary: removing the non-essential modifier should not impact the meaning but here removing modifier , wildlife officials estimate, changes the meaning from estimation to actual)

The clue hers is to know what or which or who dose not have natural predators. Wildlife officials can not have predators, so dump A, B and E. New Jersey, a place also can not have predators. So drop D. What is left is C, indicating logically that the deer population has no natural predators and that is the obvious choice

Source : GMATPrep Default Exam Pack

With no natural predators and expanses of green suburban neighborhoods that allow no hunting, wildlife officials estimate the New Jersey deer population to have grown to exceed 175,000.

(A) With no natural predators and expanses of green suburban neighborhoods that allow no hunting, wildlife officials estimate the New Jersey deer population to have

(B) With no natural predators and with expanses of green suburban neighborhoods that do not allow hunting, wildlife officials' estimate of deer population in New Jersey has

(C) With no natural predators and with expanses of green suburban neighborhoods where there is no hunting, the deer population in New Jersey, wildlife officials estimate, has

(D) Without natural predators and no hunting allowed in expanses of green suburban neighborhoods, New Jersey has a deer population that wildlife officials estimate to have

(E) Without natural predators and with expanses of green suburban neighborhoods where there is no hunting, wildlife officials in New Jersey estimate a deer population that has

Hi VeritasKarishma EducationAisle what exactly is the role played by "wildlife officials estimate" in the correct option C? I understand its is a non-essential modifier but what is it modifying? Is it modifying deep population? and if yes it giving additional information about deer population i.e. to let the reader know that the population estimate was done by wildlife official.

Hi VeritasKarishma EducationAisle what exactly is the role played by "wildlife officials estimate" in the correct option C? I understand its is a non-essential modifier but what is it modifying? Is it modifying deep population? and if yes it giving additional information about deer population i.e. to let the reader know that the population estimate was done by wildlife official.

Can someone please help me understand how can deer population have expanses of green suburban neighborhoods?

And, based on option D can't we infer that there are no natural predators in New Jersey for deer population?