GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 07 Dec 2019, 19:15

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

With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 25 Nov 2018
Posts: 1
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Nov 2018, 08:18
1
If you do not only take sentence structure into account, they are all wrong. The fact is though that only C has the correct sentence structure. In all the other answers the "with no natural predators" could refer to "the wildlife officials" or in the case of D "New Jersey".

A. Officials could be prey.
B. Officials could be prey.
C. Right sentence structure and coherence.
D. Jersey could be prey.
E. Officials could be prey.

Why is C wrong? It changes the meaning. No hunting allowed does not imply that there is no hunting. One can suggest the other, but that is making your own assumptions, which you should always avoid on GMAT.

The question should be tossed.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 28 Jan 2018
Posts: 149
Location: Taiwan
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V38
GPA: 3.34
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Dec 2018, 22:21
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.

Ask yourself this question, who or what has no natural predators
Wildlife officials? Wildlife official's estimate? or the deer population.

(C) is the correct answer, focus on the correct subject the modifier is describing
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 10 Aug 2016
Posts: 26
Location: Ireland
GMAT 1: 780 Q49 V51
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Feb 2019, 10:19
For C it seems like " and with expanses of green suburban neighborhoods where there is no hunting" is referring to the Deer Population. Is there a specific rule for this because all of the answers seem wrong here to me as I don't see how that makes sense.
Senior SC Moderator
avatar
V
Joined: 22 May 2016
Posts: 3723
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Feb 2019, 12:27
dreamgmat1 wrote:
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

Marger wrote:
For C it seems like " and with expanses of green suburban neighborhoods where there is no hunting" is referring to the Deer Population. Is there a specific rule for this because all of the answers seem wrong here to me as I don't see how that makes sense.

Marger , I do not understand exactly what you are asking.

You write that with expanses of green suburban neighborhoods where there is no hunting "seems" as if it is referring to the deer population.
That phrase indeed refers to the deer population.

What do you mean by "this" in "Is there a specific rule for this?" This what?
I wrote a post about introductory phrases that begin with prepositions here.
In that instance the preposition was in. In this instance the preposition is with.
That post contains guidelines. Introductory prepositional phrases differ from five other kinds of introductory phrases.
Stricter rules govern the latter.

And what part, logically, does not "make sense"?

In this statement, both prepositional phrases (with + phrase) modify the subject of the sentence.

Both of the with phrases give us information that helps to unravel the meaning of the sentence.

• Meaning: The deer population in New Jersey does not contend with forces such as natural predators or hunters in hunting areas that might curb the deer population's growth, and officials estimate that the population has grown to exceed 175,000.

• WITH + phrase is a prepositional modifier

The target noun deer population in New Jersey is preceded by its prepositional descriptors (the "with" statements).

What is true of the deer population in New Jersey?
-- The deer population in New Jersey has no natural predators that would curb deer population growth.
-- The deer population in New Jersey has expanses of suburban neighborhoods in which to roam. Hunting is not allowed
in those neighborhoods, hunting that also would curb deer population growth.
-- Without curbs, the deer population has grown. Officials estimate . . .

• WITH?

Oxford Online U.S. Dictionary, here, defines with as possessing (something) as a feature or accompaniment.

Cambridge Online Dictionary, here, defines with as having or possessing (someone or something).

In this official question, here, just as is the case in this question, an introductory phrase headed by the preposition with modifies a sensible noun.

The deer population in New Jersey has no curbs on its growth; the population has no natural predators and has roaming areas in which hunting is not allowed.

-- Awkward rewrite: Wildlife officials estimate that the deer population in New Jersey, with no natural predators [that might curb population growth] and with habitats in which to roam where no hunting is allowed [hunting that might curb population growth], has grown to exceed 175,000.
-- The with-clauses are up front to avoid splitting two different subjects: wildlife officials (estimate that . . . ) and the deer population (which has grown . . .).

Sometimes "with" modification is easier to understand if the with phrase follows the subject.

Example from Oxford dictionary cited above:
After all, people with money and status employ other people to clean up after them.
After all, people who have money and status employ other people to clean up after them.

In the official question cited above, the first part of the sentence, not underlined, is:
With its plan to develop seven and a half acres of shore land, Cleveland is but one of a large number of communities . . .
Cleveland has a plan to develop seven and a half acres of shore land . . . .

• No other subject makes sense
Whose population is growing?
What noun has no natural predators in New Jersey?

Wildlife officials, as in options A, B, and E?
No.

New Jersey, as in option D?
No.

The deer population in New Jersey has no natural predators (and has areas in which to roam where hunting is not allowed).
The deer population has grown because it has no or few curbs on its growth.

Hope that explanation helps.
_________________
SC Butler has resumed! Get two SC questions to practice, whose links you can find by date, here.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has -- Margaret Mead
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 10 Aug 2016
Posts: 26
Location: Ireland
GMAT 1: 780 Q49 V51
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Feb 2019, 04:43
generis wrote:

And what part, logically, does not "make sense"?

In this statement, both prepositional phrases (with + phrase) modify the subject of the sentence.

Both of the with phrases give us information that helps to unravel the meaning of the sentence.

• Meaning: The deer population in New Jersey does not contend with forces such as natural predators or hunters in hunting areas that might curb the deer population's growth, and officials estimate that the population has grown to exceed 175,000.

• WITH + phrase is a prepositional modifier

The target noun deer population in New Jersey is preceded by its prepositional descriptors (the "with" statements).

What is true of the deer population in New Jersey?
-- The deer population in New Jersey has no natural predators that would curb deer population growth.
-- The deer population in New Jersey has expanses of suburban neighborhoods in which to roam. Hunting is not allowed
in those neighborhoods, hunting that also would curb deer population growth.
-- Without curbs, the deer population has grown. Officials estimate . . .



Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post. I shortened your quote to clarify which part I am referring to.

My question surrounds the "expanses of suburban neighborhoods". If we add in "in which to roam" then I agree it makes perfect sense but without that I don't see how we can infer that is the authors intention. "With expanses of suburban neighborhoods" seems to me that it is referring to a location that has expanses of suburban neighborhoods, a deer population cannot have suburban neighborhoods. I expect this phrase to need to refer to a location such as New Jersey. To me for it to be clear that the intention is for the sentence to mean "suburban neighborhoods in which to roam" the "in which to roam" part must be included, otherwise I feel this is not clear and is poor English.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 16 Mar 2014
Posts: 16
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Apr 2019, 01:48
Hi,

I want to understand why option D is incorrect?
In option C, "Expanses of green suburban neighborhoods that allow no hunting" cannot modify "deer population" in my opinion. This phrase modifies a place, and hence option D seems correct.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 29 Mar 2017
Posts: 11
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Aug 2019, 11:09
Zarrolou wrote:
fozzzy wrote:
Can someone provide a detailed explanation for this one? Thanks in advance!


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




I rejected C, because of a slight difference in meaning from the given sentence.
The given sentence says - "....neighborhood that donot allow hunting.......", whereas option C says - ".......neighborhoods where there is no hunting...."

As per my understanding of the sentence correction question, the correct option should capture the exact meaning of the given sentence logically and grammatically, which is not happening here 100%.

Can you please guide me, and correct my thought process, if incorrect?

Thanks !
Shivam
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 08 May 2018
Posts: 2
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Aug 2019, 11:06
A. ‘green suburban neighborhoods that allow no hunting' - Meaning error, modifier error – Green suburban
neighborhoods cannot be the ones to not allow hunting. + the beginning part of the sentence modifies wildlife officials
B. Same as A.
C. Correct.
D. SV error. S- a deer population , V- have. + ‘New Jersey has a deer population..’ changes the original meaning of the sentence.
E. + the beginning part of the sentence modifies wildlife officials .
‘wildlife officials in New Jersey’ – estimate a deer population. Grammatically correct but changes meaning. The ‘deer population ‘of new Jersey was supposed to increase. Now we do not know where the deer population is increasing, instead we know where the officials are from.

Answer C[/b][/b]
VP
VP
User avatar
D
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 1314
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
GMAT 5: 650 Q48 V31
GMAT 6: 600 Q38 V35
GPA: 3
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Oct 2019, 22:26
A, B, D and E are clearly meant to modify "deer popln" or "deer" but instead illogically state that either wildlife officials, wildlife officials' estimate or New Jersey itself have no "natural predators".
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 11 Aug 2019
Posts: 59
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Nov 2019, 07:46
Dear Expert,

I'm confused by many responses to this question.

First of all, some have said D has wrong S + V agreement, they seem to say that the correct answer has to have "HAS" instead of "HAVE"

"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 grown to exceed 50,000"

I think "to have grown" is perfectly fine, and "to HAS GROWN" is absolutely wrong.
Why are some people saying it has to be the latter? Please clarify!

Second of all, for C, I have a hard time wrapping my head around "the deer population, with expanses of green suburban neighborhoods, has grown to exceed" since I think only a LOCATION, like New Jersey, can have expanses of green suburban neighborhood. Like New York has many streets, or "Colorado, with lots of mountains."
How can a population (deer population to be specific), which is an abstract concept, to have a physical expanses of green neighborhood?

Is there any parallel example to this?

I also think that "without natural predators" can modify New Jersey. Some areas in the world have many predators, like lions or tigers, while there are other parts of the world like in New Zealand, there were mostly birds and no predators.

If we argue that "predators" can only be a predator in respect to another animal, then it should be the deer in New Jersey, not deer population. When you think of population, you think of a number.

For those reason, I think C is not the correct answer and D seems better to me. Thanks!
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 13 Aug 2019
Posts: 20
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Nov 2019, 20:47
The introductory modifier should modify New Jersey so option D should be correct
How option C is incorrect
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
D
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2993
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Nov 2019, 22:04
1
shabuzen102 wrote:
Dear Expert,

I'm confused by many responses to this question.

First of all, some have said D has wrong S + V agreement, they seem to say that the correct answer has to have "HAS" instead of "HAVE"

"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 grown to exceed 50,000"

I think "to have grown" is perfectly fine, and "to HAS GROWN" is absolutely wrong.
Why are some people saying it has to be the latter? Please clarify!

Second of all, for C, I have a hard time wrapping my head around "the deer population, with expanses of green suburban neighborhoods, has grown to exceed" since I think only a LOCATION, like New Jersey, can have expanses of green suburban neighborhood. Like New York has many streets, or "Colorado, with lots of mountains."
How can a population (deer population to be specific), which is an abstract concept, to have a physical expanses of green neighborhood?

Is there any parallel example to this?

I also think that "without natural predators" can modify New Jersey. Some areas in the world have many predators, like lions or tigers, while there are other parts of the world like in New Zealand, there were mostly birds and no predators.

If we argue that "predators" can only be a predator in respect to another animal, then it should be the deer in New Jersey, not deer population. When you think of population, you think of a number.

For those reason, I think C is not the correct answer and D seems better to me. Thanks!

I think it's fair to say that an animal or animal population can have green expanses in which to roam, but I see your point about the possibility of a location not having predators, so let's find another problem with (D).

Typically, when we write "without x and y," we're talking about two elements that are missing. For example, "Tim, utterly without wit and charm, is often the butt of the joke at cocktail parties." Tim lacks two qualities: wit and charm. Makes sense.

But now look at (D): "Without natural predators and no hunting..." So, the two elements lacking are "natural predators" and "no hunting?" It makes no sense to write that something is "without no hunting," so now there's a clear logical error in (D). We might not love (C), but "neighborhoods where there is no hunting" is far clearer and more logical than "without no hunting," so that's what we're left with. (C) is our answer.

Takeaway: you don't have to love every element of the correct answer. Often, you won't. It's far better to look for why the four other options are inferior, and then select the best, or least bad, of the bunch.

I hope that helps!
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: all videos by topic

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods   [#permalink] 21 Nov 2019, 22:04

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 32 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





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