NewJersey Deer Population

[tim]

My problem with C was that - has a full sentence in the comma - wildlife officials estimate

This is the issue because a independent clause is placed within another clause ( without any conjunction )

Ron could you please let me know how this is correct...

as Ron would say, it's correct because the GMAT says it's correct. :) remember, don't question official answers, just internalize this as a valid construction..

[tim]

i was confused between C and D. i had exactly same problematic feeling with C and D but then i thought D is correct as i thought that may be the parallel elements are without natural predators and no hunting allowed, which are parallel and retain the meaning, and "without" is for first modifier only. what is wrong here ?

how did you conclude that 'with expanses of green suburban neighborhoods' is ONLY somewhat ridiculous. i thought that since "deer population" cannot have expanses of neighbourhood, this error is grotesque error. ("with" means that entity modified by "with" actually has the thing coming in"with...."

how are these two things parallel? they are way too different to be parallel..

i won't deal with your second paragraph, because it's obviously irrelevant and frankly a little fastidious..

[nocheivyirene]

Here is how I attacked this problem but I am not that certain if my thought process about this one is right.

A. The meaning is wrong. "With no predators and expanses" The intended meaning is "with no predators and with expanses" Let's cross this one out.

B. "...with expanses of green suburban neighborhoods that do not allow hunting"... I crossed this one out because the neighborhoods are not the ones "allowing or not allowing" but some laws or people. In the other choices, they use "where there is no hunting". To me, this is better.

D. "Without predators and no hunting allowed" - bad parallelism. Then again, I always compare to the usage of other sentences like in (C) "With no predators and with expanses" - this is much better. So I crossed this one out too.

Now, between (C) and (E).

(C) "With no natural predators and with expanses, the deer population has grown..."
(E) "Without natural predators and with expanses, the wildlife officials estimate a deer population that has grown..

I looked at it this way.. "With no natural predators and with expanses" explains the deer population's growth over the official's estimate.

I chose (C)

[RonPurewal]

nocheivyirene, most, if not all, of those ideas are already contained in this thread (which, at the moment, is over 30 posts long). please read the thread; it's ilkely that all of your questions will already be addressed in the existing posts.

if you have a question that is still unanswered, after you've read all the way through the thread, then please come back and post it.

thanks.

[er.sukantsharma]

Hi,

This question actually came in my GMAT Prep 1.

I am actually a bit confused by the second part of your explanation. How can 'deers' have green expanses. Forests or a place can have green expanses. How can this modify not 'deer' but 'deer population'. How can 'deer population' have green expanses..???
Also, similarly how can 'deer population' have 'no natural predators'....??
Its a very major doubt I am having in this question regarding the modifier.
Please if you could elaborate more on this point.
Thanks in advance...!!!

[RonPurewal]

Hi,

This question actually came in my GMAT Prep 1.

I am actually a bit confused by the second part of your explanation. How can 'deers' have green expanses. Forests or a place can have green expanses. How can this modify not 'deer' but 'deer population'. How can 'deer population' have green expanses..???

One question mark is enough. More than one is rude and unprofessional.

It's like this:
"I have nowhere to go" --> With nowhere to go, I can stay home and relax.
"There is no tree in which the bird can make a nest" --> With no tree in which to make a nest, the bird must construct one atop some man-made structure.

I do see your point here: it's not 100% literally accurate to say that the deer population "has" these green expanses. But, any more accurate way to express the idea is going to be extremely clumsy, especially in the form of a modifier.

More importantly, some form of this modifier exists in all of the choices, so it's not an issue in the first place. Don't create trouble where none exists!

[RonPurewal]

Also, similarly how can 'deer population' have 'no natural predators'....
Its a very major doubt I am having in this question regarding the modifier.
Please if you could elaborate more on this point.
Thanks in advance...!!!

Same thing with the ?'s and the !'s. Just one, thanks.

Here, there's no reasonable objection. The deer population doesn't have any predators -- i.e., no other animal eats the deer.

Maybe you're thinking that "have" MUST mean "possess". If you're thinking that, then, no. "Have" can express other types of relationships, besides possession.
For instance, I have two sisters and three brothers is a perfectly respectable sentence, even though people obviously don't own their siblings. In fact, I can't readily think of another legitimate way to write that sentence.

[aditya8062]

RON i have a little query about this question

many instructors, while eliminating the wrong answers have said that the expression "With no natural predators and with expanses of green suburban neighborhoods where there is no hunting" is not being modified by proper subject other than the correct option C

however i feel that this expression is prepositional phrase and such phrases need not take the subject after the comma as their subject .in fact most of the times they act adverbial (they modify the following clause)
[RON you also have explicitly stated this point in one of your post]

for instance : in 2014, I graduated from the university ----->"in 2014" need not take "I" as the subject

this sentence is also correct :
With the cost of wireless service plummeting in the last year and mobile phones becoming increasingly common, many people are now using their mobile phones to make calls across a wide region at night and on weekends, when numerous wireless companies provide unlimited airtime for a relatively small monthly fee.------>here the expression "With the cost of wireless ....." does not take "many people" as its subject

my doubt : so will it be not wrong to eliminate answers on the basis that the expression "With no natural predators" is wrongly modifying the noun after the comma in most choices other than C

is my understanding correct ?
thanks

[RonPurewal]

That's a good question.

I thought about this for a bit. Here's my best answer:

* If the prep phrase does not specifically pertain to the subject at all, then it doesn't matter where the subject is placed.
E.g., "In 1993" is purely the timeframe of an action. It would make no sense at all to say that any person or physical object is/was "in 1993".
So, in the sentence In 1993, I graduated from high school, "In 1993" is describing nothing other than the pure event. It doesn't pertain to any noun.
So, it makes no difference which noun is placed after it.
You could also write In 1993, Dupont Manual High School issued me a diploma.

On the other hand...
* If the prep phrase actually applies to a specific noun, then that noun should be placed directly after it.
E.g.,
With sufficient course credit to skip my first year of college afterward, I graduated from high school.
Here, "With sufficient course credit..." specifically describes me. So, "I" must follow it.
This sentence would be wrong:
*With sufficient course credit to skip my first year of college afterward, Dupont Manual High School issued me a diploma.

Hope that helps.

[RonPurewal]

In your example above, note that "With the cost of wireless service plummeting..." is a general observation. It pertains to the entire situation described, rather than to any one player in that situation. So, it makes no difference which noun follows that observation.

[aditya8062]

RON :I thought about this for a bit. Here's my best answer:

thanks a lot RON
i must say, the fact that you provide different and enlightening perspective,with good genius examples, sets u way apart.
million kudos to you for your help
best regards

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[soulwangh]

That's a good question.

I thought about this for a bit. Here's my best answer:

* If the prep phrase does not specifically pertain to the subject at all, then it doesn't matter where the subject is placed.
E.g., "In 1993" is purely the timeframe of an action. It would make no sense at all to say that any person or physical object is/was "in 1993".
So, in the sentence In 1993, I graduated from high school, "In 1993" is describing nothing other than the pure event. It doesn't pertain to any noun.
So, it makes no difference which noun is placed after it.
You could also write In 1993, Dupont Manual High School issued me a diploma.

On the other hand...
* If the prep phrase actually applies to a specific noun, then that noun should be placed directly after it.
E.g.,
With sufficient course credit to skip my first year of college afterward, I graduated from high school.
Here, "With sufficient course credit..." specifically describes me. So, "I" must follow it.
This sentence would be wrong:
*With sufficient course credit to skip my first year of college afterward, Dupont Manual High School issued me a diploma.

Hope that helps.

Hi Ron

It seems a new thought about "with+noun" phrase as a open modifier.
I wonder whether your previous thoughts about this structure still hold true in your opinion.

In question below:
On account of a law passed in 1993, making it a crime punishable by imprisonment that a United States citizen hold gold in the form of bullion or coins, immigrants found that on arrival in the United States they had to surrender all of the gold they had brought with them.

A.On account of a law passed in 1993, making it a crime punishable by imprisonment that a United States citizen hold
B.With a law passed in 1933 that makes it a crime punishable by imprisonment that a United States citizen hold
C.A law passed in 1933 that made it a crime punishable by imprisonment for a United States citizen holding
D.Because of a law passed in 1933 making it a crime punishable by imprisonment for a United States citizen to hold
E.Due to a law being passed in 1933 that makes it a crime punishable by imprisonment for a United States citizen to hold

Your opinion about Choice B is quoted as below:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/forums/post90698.html?sid=d78d24184566cdccaabd71a612a68055#p90698

In that problem, the modifier actually describes the sentence it's attached to. I.e., the honeybee's stinger, by staying where it is inserted, has the described effect. So "with the effect that..." (or whatever it says) is an accurate descriptor of that sentence.

In this sentence, "with a law..." doesn't describe the immigrants, nor does it describe anything that the immigrants did. So it can't describe either the subject or the sentence.

Can we consider "with a law passed in 1993..." a general observation. It pertains to the entire situation described, rather than to any one player in that situation?
In other words, is Choice B not wrong for the "with+noun" structure, but wrong for other things, such as the tense of Verb “make”？

Please shine some light.
Thanks!

[imperial.franco]

My problem with C was that - has a full sentence in the comma - wildlife officials estimate

This is the issue because a independent clause is placed within another clause ( without any conjunction )

Ron could you please let me know how this is correct...

Hi Ron, I went over the thread and this issue has really not been addressed. In this sentence, "the deer population in New Jersey, wildlife officials estimate, has grown to exceed 175,000," what type of modifier is the text in bold, if it is truly a modifier?

I think it can be parallel to this type of construction. E.g.

"The man in black, the boy says, is the suspect."

I think it's more of an inversion than a modifier?
i.e.
Wildlife officials estimate [that] the deer population in New Jersey has grown to exceed 175,000.
The boy says the man in black is the suspect.

[RonPurewal]

your understanding of this modifier is on point. (yes, it works in exactly the same way as "the boy says".)

on the other hand, i can't tell exactly what you are asking for.

* if your question is "Is my understanding on point?", then the answer is "Yes."

* if you're asking "what is the grammatical term/name for this construction?", then there are two answers:
1/ i don't know; (i know almost no grammar terms at all)
2/ there is no reason on earth why you should care.
if you know how the construction works, then you know everything you might ever possibly have to know about the construction.