GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

It is currently 31 Mar 2020, 03:27

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 
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 62
With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 02 Jul 2018, 10:51
7
96
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

59% (01:27) correct 41% (01:51) wrong based on 2820 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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

Originally posted by dreamgmat1 on 08 Jul 2007, 10:46.
Last edited by GMATNinja on 02 Jul 2018, 10:51, edited 6 times in total.
Formatted the question.
Most Helpful Expert Reply
Retired Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: enjoying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5418
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Oct 2010, 02:25
18
1
5
Choice C becos, it is the only one in which, the modifier phrase introducing the
passage genuinely modifies the intended modified noun the deer population
_________________
One-to-one video private sessions on SC +91 98845 44509, <newnaren@gmail.com>
Most Helpful Community Reply
VP
VP
User avatar
Status: Far, far away!
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 1000
Location: Italy
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Jun 2013, 01:13
18
7
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
General Discussion
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Aug 2010
Posts: 113
Location: Finland
Schools: Admitted: IESE($$),HEC, RSM,Esade
WE 1: 3.5 years international
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Oct 2010, 04:56
11
5
Pkit wrote:
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 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 go for C.
This problem is a very good example of ellipsis, as explained by Kaplan. Firstly, the negation is used wrongly. It should be "....no and no..." or "...no or ....". In this sentence the negation is applied to natural predators and to expanses of green suburban neighbourhoods, which is not the intended meaning.
Secondly, parallelism calls for the use of "with" on both sides of the parallel marker. Thirdly, "deer population" is a singular subject and requires a singular verb such as "has".
Lastly, the plural possessive noun (s') is almost always wrong on the GMAT.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 173
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Feb 2010, 16:05
7
humm , good question

First thing - population is singular so , has should be used - A , D out

Between B , C and E B and C are modifying wildlife officials and C is modifying deer
Obviously deer is correct . Predators can not modify wildlife officials :)
_________________
Always tag your question
Retired Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: enjoying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5418
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Apr 2011, 05:17
6
1
3
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
_________________
One-to-one video private sessions on SC +91 98845 44509, <newnaren@gmail.com>
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
P
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2983
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Sep 2013, 12:42
4
1
deepak1990verma wrote:
Hi,

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 the 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 expanse 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 neighborhoods where there is no hunting, wildlife officials in New Jersey estimate a deer population that has

In this question I got stuck between C and D ,

Choice C says --> The deer population with no natural predators led to increase deer's population

While D says ---> New Jersey Without Natural predators led to increase deer population because there are no predators to feed on deer in New jersey .

So both meant the same , but I eliminated C for some other reason .

In C :

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

wildlife officials estimate : Independent Clause ,Which has been joined with other I.C

(subject) (verb)

But OA is C :

Is my logic of neglecting C wrong ;I have never seen such type construction anywhere but have seen such construction with some preposition , verb+ed ,or verb+ing modifier .Hence, I thought that the above construction is I.C and neglected it .

Have I overthought it or this is also a possible construction .

Thanks, Deepak


Image


Hi Deepak,

Thanks for posting your question here :-)

Meaning is the key to solve this one.

According to wildlife official estimate, deer population in New Jersey has grown to exceed 175,000/ What is the reason for this growth? There are two reasons mentioned in the sentence.
1. Deer in New Jersey have no natural predators.
2. Deer have expanses of green suburban neighborhood where hunting is not allowed.
Both these factors account for increase in the number of deer in New Jersey.

However, the opening modifiers in all the answer choices, except for Choice D, refer to the incorrect entity.

Now let's come to Choice C the construction of which has confused you:

Choice 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

One way to understand this structure is to understand the role of this clause "wildlife official estimate". What is it that they have estimated? They have estimated the deer population in New Jersey. So in essence, "wildlife official estimate" acts as a noun modifier that refers to "the deer population in New Jersey".

Look at the following example:
I will have the pizza I usually order.

This sentence may also appear to be having two independent clauses. But that is not the case. The clause "I usually order" actually modifies "the pizza". The sentence can be written as:
I will have the pizza that I usually order.

Something similar is happening in Choice C of this official question. So the clause "wildlife officials estimate" is not an independent clause but a dependent clause and hence does not lead to fragment error.

Hope this helps. :-)
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________
Retired Moderator
User avatar
B
Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Posts: 1385
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.35
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Feb 2015, 04:51
4
6
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\
Wildlife officials should not come after the comma instead the deer population should come as the deer population is modified here by the initial statement
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
Wildlife officials's estimate should not come after the comma instead the deer population should come as the deer population is modified here by the initial statement
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
Correct
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
The statement says without natural predators and without no hunting ... This does not makes sense
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
Wildlife officials should not come after the comma instead the deer population should come as the deer population is modified here by the initial statement

P.S. Please make sure to search for a problem before posting.
The discussion for this particular SC already exists.
_________________
Princeton Review Representative
avatar
Joined: 17 Jun 2013
Posts: 155
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Jun 2013, 08:56
3
1
PTK wrote:
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 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

There is a subject verb agreement issue at the end of the sentence. the population is singular so we need has - this eliminates A and D. B, C and D all have the same type of modifier so the way the begining is worded is not at issue adn teh different between without and with no is an issue of style, not grammar. B says that the officials estimate as grown, not the deer population so it changes the meaning and is wrong. In E the begining phrase modifies wildlife officials, not the deer population so E is wrong and C is hte best answer.
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 972
Location: United States
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Aug 2013, 23:09
3
happyinlove505 wrote:
kiranck007 wrote:
Hi,

Can you please answer my query : in choice "C" what is "wildlife officials estimate" functioning as? Modifier? Modifying what? What kind of modifier?

Thanks,
Kiran

Good question.
I discarded choice C because of this ", wildlife officials estimate,", but now it looks it was correct. But I do not understand why :)


Hi happyinlove505

"wildlife officials estimate" is clause modifier (because it has both subject and verb).

Note: Modifiers are words, phrases, or clauses that provide description in sentences.

In this question, the clause "wildlife officials estimate" plays as noun modifier. The clause modifies "the deer population". To make sure let ask what wildlife official estimate? Absolutely, they estimate the deer population.

Hope it helps.
SVP
SVP
User avatar
D
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 1711
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Sep 2013, 03:20
3
D seems to suggest that New Jersey does not have natural predators; the intent is to convey that the deer population does not have natural predators. Also, D does not seem to be very clear in meaning:

Without natural predators and (without) no hunting allowed in expanse of green suburban neighborhoods?

A better construct would have been:

Without natural predators and with no hunting allowed in expanse of green suburban neighborhoods... (though problem mentioned above about New Jersey would still have remained).

By the way, If C was:

With no natural predators and with expanses of green suburban neighborhoods where there is no hunting, wildlife officials estimate that the deer population in New Jersey has grown to exceed 175,000

Again this would have suggested that wildlife officials have no natural predators : )
_________________
Thanks,
Ashish
GMAT-99th Percentile, MBA - ISB Hyderabad
EducationAisle, Bangalore

Sentence Correction Nirvana available on Amazon.in and Flipkart

Join us for a free GMAT Live Online Class from anywhere in the world
Tuck School Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 231
Location: Tbilisi, Georgia
Schools: Stanford (in), Tuck (WL), Wharton (ding), Cornell (in)
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Feb 2010, 23:42
2
First question we should ask is - what is the introductory clause modifying?

"With no natural predators and expanses of green suburban neighborhoods that allow no hunting" - it can't be wildlife officials or the deer population. This clause clearly describes the peculiarities of New Jersey. So new "New jersey" should immediately follow the clause - and so it does in (D).

Based solely on that fact we already can choose the correct answer.

And for further analysis, it's worth mentioning that "without" seems better than "with no" - therefore (A), (B) and (C) should be considered too wordy and be out
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 300
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jan 2012, 15:37
1
Answer (C) is not a case of the double negative. Each ‘no’ occurs in different dependent clauses. The first ‘no’ relates to the absence of natural predators and the second ‘no’ relates to the absence of hunting.

As for the explanation, daagh does a very succinct job of explaining the modifier problem.
_________________
Christopher Lele
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image
Princeton Review Representative
avatar
Joined: 17 Jun 2013
Posts: 155
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Aug 2013, 14:32
1
surya167 wrote:
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
Retired Moderator
User avatar
S
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2828
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Apr 2016, 01:09
1
sk5002 wrote:
Hi,

Can we have someone from the E-GMAT team respond to this?

I have the following doubts-:

1) How does the "Green expanses of suburban .. " modify deer population? New Jersey fits in well here. Though, I can beat my head around accepting that this does modify deer population but I'm not sure what would the key "takeaway" be here so that I don't make such a mistake again?

2" If I say "With no natural predators and the green expanses ....", do I need to put with in front of "the green expanses" or it's understood from the first modifier phrase? Please provide your thoughts

Thanks,
Shobhit


1. As per modifier touch rule, a modifier must touch the noun it modifies. The modifier " With no natural predators and with expanses of green suburban neighborhoods where there is no hunting" refers to the "deer population" since it is the noun that touches the modifier. (Although there are certain exceptions to this rule, they do not apply here - this is a clear case of modifier touch rule).

2. Consider the "once outside twice inside" rule for paralllelism:

Twice inside: (With X) and (With Y)
In this case "With" is inside both the parallel elements.

Once outside: With (X) and (Y)
In this case "With" is outside the parallelism structure. (something similar to taking common in algebraic multiplication.)

Both are correct in context of option C - one could say either:
Twice inside: (With no natural predators) and (with expanses of green suburban neighborhoods where there is no hunting)

or:
Once outside: With (no natural predators) and (expanses of green suburban neighborhoods where there is no hunting)
Retired Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: enjoying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5418
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Jan 2017, 07:40
1
Top Contributor
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
_________________
One-to-one video private sessions on SC +91 98845 44509, <newnaren@gmail.com>
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
D
Status: GMAT and GRE tutors
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 3235
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Nov 2019, 21:04
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 tutors @ 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.
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 02 Sep 2016
Posts: 39
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Oct 2016, 09:53
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

As per me, this question tests us on Modifiers, Subject Verb Agreement and Parallelism concepts. I have marked the errors in Red

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
seems as if the estimates have grown to exceed 175,000 instead of the deer population
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
same as 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
Correct: The deer population has grown to exceed 175,000
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
Subject verb disagreement: New Jersey has a deer population that wildlife officials estimate to have instead of has
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
Without A and With B wrong construction as compared to With A and With B.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 04 Aug 2015
Posts: 76
Location: India
Concentration: Leadership, Technology
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V35
GPA: 3.39
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jan 2017, 06:31
The logical meaning of the sentence:

The wild officials estimate that the population of the deer in New Jersy in the absence of a natural predator and in the presence of lush green suburban neighborhoods where hunting is prohibited has grown to exceed 175,000.

A) "With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods that allow no hunting" modifies the wildlife officials which is a wrong construction and which goes against the logical meaning.

B) Both the modifier and the modified entity are wrong. Modifier: With no natural predators and with expenses of green suburban neighborhoods that do not allow hunting; entity modified: wildlife officials' estimate

C) Logical.

D) New Jersey has no natural predator. The meaning is not correct.

E) The modifier and the modified entity are not correct. Modifier: Without natural predators and with expenses of green neighborhoods where there is no hunting; modified entity: wildlife officials.

PS: There are grammatical errors as well.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 02 Jun 2018
Posts: 3
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jun 2018, 07:42
A. ‘green suburban neighborhoods that allow no hunting’ - Meaning error, modifier error – Green suburban neighborhoods cannot be the ones to not allow hunting.
B. Same as A.
C. Correct.
D. SV error. S- a deer population , V- have.
E. ‘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.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: With no natural predators and expenses of green suburban neighborhoods   [#permalink] 03 Jun 2018, 07:42

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 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  





cron

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