Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 11:37 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 11:37
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   
avatar
fireagablast
avatar
Joined: 30 Jun 2019
Last visit: 17 Aug 2021
Posts: 263
Own Kudos:
123
Given Kudos: 8
Posts: 263
Kudos: 123
With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods 08 Apr 2020, 23:14
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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?
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
3,579
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods 08 Apr 2020, 23:20
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
fireagablast
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?
Show more
Isn't neighborhood a place?
User avatar
iamdivs
User avatar
Joined: 14 Jan 2020
Last visit: 24 Feb 2022
Posts: 72
Own Kudos:
20
Given Kudos: 84
Location: India
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
Posts: 72
Kudos: 20
With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods 20 Apr 2020, 15:46
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
daagh
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
Show more

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.)
User avatar
AnthonyRitz
User avatar
Stacy Blackman Consulting Director of Test Prep
Joined: 21 Dec 2014
Last visit: 16 Nov 2025
Posts: 238
Own Kudos:
427
 [2]
Given Kudos: 169
Affiliations: Stacy Blackman Consulting
Location: United States (DC)
GMAT 1: 790 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
GPA: 3.11
WE:Education (Education)
GMAT 1: 790 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 238
Kudos: 427
 [2]
With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods Updated on: 03 Jul 2020, 14:30
Originally posted by AnthonyRitz on 02 Jul 2020, 20:56.
Last edited by AnthonyRitz on 03 Jul 2020, 14:30, edited 3 times in total.
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
iamdivs
daagh
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.)
Show more

New Jersey has no natural predators? Do you mean that nothing anywhere eats New Jersey? Or do you mean that nothing in New Jersey eats anything? Because I don't see any other way to understand the idea of "without natural predators" modifying "New Jersey." (And no, neither of these options strikes me as remotely logical.)

Conversely, while it's a little strange to say that the "deer population" is modified by "with expanses of green suburban neighborhoods where there is no hunting," but, hey, why not? Who's to say that the deer population doesn't have expanses of green neighborhoods? It does roam freely through them eating plants. It's certainly less weird than any alternative here.
avatar
ericzhang0821
avatar
Joined: 08 Nov 2020
Last visit: 07 Dec 2021
Posts: 7
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 7
Kudos: 1
With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods 17 Mar 2021, 13:03
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Zarrolou
fozzzy
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
Show more


I think it is ok to refer no predator and no hunting to New Jersey
avatar
ericzhang0821
avatar
Joined: 08 Nov 2020
Last visit: 07 Dec 2021
Posts: 7
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 7
Kudos: 1
With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods 17 Mar 2021, 13:07
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
BeckyRobinsonTPR
surya167
The answer to this question is definitely not clear. Why is D not correct? Can someone who has got this correct can please explain this .. will help all of us!

"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
Show more


If "without natural predators" cannot modify "New Jersey", it cannot modify "population" as well, how can population has predator?
User avatar
AnthonyRitz
User avatar
Stacy Blackman Consulting Director of Test Prep
Joined: 21 Dec 2014
Last visit: 16 Nov 2025
Posts: 238
Own Kudos:
427
Given Kudos: 169
Affiliations: Stacy Blackman Consulting
Location: United States (DC)
GMAT 1: 790 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
GPA: 3.11
WE:Education (Education)
GMAT 1: 790 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 238
Kudos: 427
With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods 17 Mar 2021, 20:40
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ericzhang0821
BeckyRobinsonTPR
surya167
The answer to this question is definitely not clear. Why is D not correct? Can someone who has got this correct can please explain this .. will help all of us!

"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?
Show more

Because predators eat populations (or subsets thereof); they do not eat states (or subsets thereof).
User avatar
AnthonyRitz
User avatar
Stacy Blackman Consulting Director of Test Prep
Joined: 21 Dec 2014
Last visit: 16 Nov 2025
Posts: 238
Own Kudos:
427
Given Kudos: 169
Affiliations: Stacy Blackman Consulting
Location: United States (DC)
GMAT 1: 790 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
GPA: 3.11
WE:Education (Education)
GMAT 1: 790 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 238
Kudos: 427
With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods 17 Mar 2021, 20:42
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ericzhang0821
Zarrolou
fozzzy
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 think it is ok to refer no predator and no hunting to New Jersey
Show more

It is not. There is no sense in which it is logical to say that New Jersey has no predators. (No hunting? Sure; that's fine.)
User avatar
mSKR
User avatar
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Last visit: 10 Mar 2024
Posts: 1,290
Own Kudos:
938
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
Schools: IE (A) IIML-IPMX '22 (A) HKUST '22
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
Schools: IE (A) IIML-IPMX '22 (A) HKUST '22
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
Posts: 1,290
Kudos: 938
With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods 20 Mar 2021, 01:52
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi IanStewart generis ExpertsGlobal5 gmat1393 GMATGuruNY GMATNinja GMATRockstar


Quote:
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
Show more

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.
User avatar
IanStewart
User avatar
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 4,145
Own Kudos:
10,989
 [2]
Given Kudos: 99
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,145
Kudos: 10,989
 [2]
With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods 20 Mar 2021, 08:50
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mSKR

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.
Show more

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.
User avatar
GMATRockstar
User avatar
Joined: 21 Apr 2014
Last visit: 12 Nov 2025
Posts: 90
Own Kudos:
793
 [1]
Given Kudos: 3
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 90
Kudos: 793
 [1]
With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods 23 Mar 2021, 23:39
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mSKR
Hi IanStewart generis ExpertsGlobal5 gmat1393 GMATGuruNY GMATNinja GMATRockstar


Quote:
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.

Please give your opinion.
Show more

Present perfect is used to describe something that started in the past and is continuing into the present. The action of growing is ongoing in (C).
User avatar
mSKR
User avatar
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Last visit: 10 Mar 2024
Posts: 1,290
Own Kudos:
938
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
Schools: IE (A) IIML-IPMX '22 (A) HKUST '22
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
Schools: IE (A) IIML-IPMX '22 (A) HKUST '22
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
Posts: 1,290
Kudos: 938
With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods 11 Apr 2021, 01:07
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
IanStewart
mSKR

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.

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.
Show more
Hi IanStewart AjiteshArun


One follow up query:

Quote:
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
Show more
as wildlife officials estimate is nonessential modifier-- does not the sentence lose meaning ?
IN other words,
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
It seems ( the population has already grown- not just estimate) , the meaning if I remove the non-essential modifier.
But from the meaning perspective, it seems wildlife estimate should be part of sentence ( to avoid lose of meaning)

( 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)
Please clarify.

Thanks!
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
 [2]
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
 [2]
With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods 11 Apr 2021, 20:39
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mSKR
( 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)
Show more
Hi mSKR,

That is not the right way to look at non-essential modifiers (the name is slightly misleading :)). Non-essential does not mean that the meaning of such an element is not important.

This is not to say that we should not remove remove modifiers from a sentence. This tactic can be very useful, especially in long sentences, but we should not expect to be able to remove modifiers without losing meaning. Generally, we remove elements from a sentence to check the rest of the sentence for structural issues.
User avatar
trulyness
User avatar
Joined: 28 May 2021
Last visit: 17 Sep 2022
Posts: 33
Own Kudos:
137
Given Kudos: 20
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V38
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V38
Posts: 33
Kudos: 137
With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods 08 Jun 2021, 08:48
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
daagh
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
Show more

When I saw this problem, I knew it was modifier problem and only if I could figure what the modifier is modifying I'd be able to get to the answer. However, I have a confusion. The modifier is:

With no natural predators and with expanses of green suburban neighborhoods where there is no hunting

How does "with expanses of green suburban neighborhoods where there is no hunting" modify the deer population? Please explain where am I going wrong.
User avatar
RohitSaluja
User avatar
Joined: 02 Aug 2020
Last visit: 21 Sep 2024
Posts: 213
Own Kudos:
92
Given Kudos: 254
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Healthcare
Schools: HEC'22 (J)
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V40
GPA: 3.8
WE:Consulting (Healthcare/Pharmaceuticals)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: HEC'22 (J)
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V40
Posts: 213
Kudos: 92
With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods 21 Nov 2021, 06:06
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
dreamgmat1
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
Show more


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.
User avatar
MartyTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Last visit: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 3,476
Own Kudos:
5,579
 [3]
Given Kudos: 1,430
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 3,476
Kudos: 5,579
 [3]
With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods 21 Nov 2021, 07:12
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
RohitSaluja
dreamgmat1
(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

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.
Show more
Hi RohitSaluja.

In the (C) version of the sentence, "wildlife officials estimate" is a parenthetical clause. It does not modify anything. Rather, it adds information to the sentence, communicating who estimates that the deer population has grown to exceed 175,000.
User avatar
ExpertsGlobal5
User avatar
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,195
Own Kudos:
4,765
Given Kudos: 43
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,195
Kudos: 4,765
With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods 22 Nov 2021, 06:15
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
RohitSaluja
dreamgmat1
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.
Show more

Hello RohitSaluja,

We hope this finds you well.

Having gone through the question and your query, we believe we can resolve your doubt.

As MartyTargetTestPrep mentioned, "wildlife officials estimate" is not a modifier per se; it is a parenthetical clause, a type of clause that provides additional information, information not vital to the core meaning of the sentence. Such clauses are typically placed between two commas.

To understand the concept of "Extra Information Between Commas" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team
User avatar
toothless123
User avatar
Joined: 05 Apr 2020
Last visit: 10 Mar 2024
Posts: 19
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 7
Posts: 19
Kudos: 1
With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods 24 May 2022, 08:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Have 2 doubts:

1) Usage of "estimate": Are the usages of "estimate" in options A,D and E correct?
Option A: wildlife officials estimate the New Jersey deer population to have grown(X estimate Y to have grown)
Option D: New Jersey has a deer population that wildlife officials estimate to have(Y that X estimate to have grown)
Option E: wildlife officials in New Jersey estimate a deer population that has(X estimate Y that has grown)

2) In Option B, can we say that the following clause changes the intended meaning: "wildlife officials’ estimate of the deer population in New Jersey have grown" ?
Original meaning: deer population has grown
Meaning communicated by Option B: estimate has grown
User avatar
Vaishali2004
User avatar
Joined: 29 Sep 2021
Last visit: 10 Apr 2025
Posts: 83
Own Kudos:
22
Given Kudos: 85
Schools: ISB '27 (WL)
GMAT 1: 610 Q47 V28
GMAT 2: 640 Q46 V31
GMAT 3: 640 Q48 V31
GMAT 4: 700 Q45 V40
Schools: ISB '27 (WL)
GMAT 4: 700 Q45 V40
Posts: 83
Kudos: 22
With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods 27 May 2022, 09:15
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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?
User avatar
MartyTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Last visit: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 3,476
Own Kudos:
5,579
Given Kudos: 1,430
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 3,476
Kudos: 5,579
With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods 27 May 2022, 10:56
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Vaishali2004
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?
Show more
In the correct version, "with" is used to communicate the meaning "because there are."

So, "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 grown ..." means, essentially, "Because there are no natural predators and there are expanses of green suburban neighborhoods where there is no hunting, the deer population in New Jersey, wildlife officials estimate, has grown ...."

Regarding (D), yes, "without natural predators ... the deer population ... has grown" does an OK job of communicating that, since there are no natural predators the deer population has grown. However, "Without natural predators and no hunting allowed" seems to communicate the illogical meaning "Without natural predators and (without) no hunting allowed."
   1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts