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

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.
_________________

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.

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]

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!
_________________