There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock,

Expert replies

aspirant2011: Legendary Member; Posts: 1574; Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 amFollowed by: 13 members; Thanked: 88 times

by aspirant2011 » Wed Jun 22, 2011 4:19 am

There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

A. There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

B. There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught, unlike cod or haddock, a circumstance that contributes to depleting them because they are being overfished.

C. There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught, but not for monkfish, which contributes to its depletion through overfishing.

D. Unlike cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, which contributes to its depletion by being overfished.

E. Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, contributing to their depletion because they are overfished.

[spoiler]OA: Will be posted later. Please guide whether the usage of their in option A is correct??????[/spoiler]

Like this post

Source: Beat The GMAT — Sentence Correction | Wed Jun 22, 2011 4:19 am

ov25: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 201; Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 2:23 pmFollowed by: 1 member; Thanked: 7 times

by ov25 » Wed Jun 22, 2011 4:37 am

monkfish/fish is a plural noun hence correct!

Like this post

abhishek.pati: Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts; Posts: 83; Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:27 am; Thanked: 1 times

by abhishek.pati » Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:36 am

IMO E

Last edited by abhishek.pati on Wed Jun 22, 2011 8:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Like this post

sameerballani: Legendary Member; Posts: 544; Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:10 amFollowed by: 2 members; Thanked: 45 times

by sameerballani » Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:39 am

imo A
oa and source?

Like this post

Calvin123: Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts; Posts: 63; Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:25 pm; Thanked: 3 times

by Calvin123 » Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:52 am

aspirant2011 wrote:There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

A. There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

B. There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught, unlike cod or haddock, a circumstance that contributes to depleting them because they are being overfished.

C. There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught, but not for monkfish, which contributes to its depletion through overfishing.

D. Unlike cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, which contributes to its depletion by being overfished.

E. Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, contributing to their depletion because they are overfished.

[spoiler]OA: Will be posted later. Please guide whether the usage of their in option A is correct??????[/spoiler]

Ans should be A

Like this post

aspirant2011: Legendary Member; Posts: 1574; Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 amFollowed by: 13 members; Thanked: 88 times

by aspirant2011 » Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:01 am

guys I agree that the OA is A but my doubt is whether usage of their in option A is correct??????? because I don't think so that monkfish is plural noun........please clarify

Like this post

Calvin123: Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts; Posts: 63; Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:25 pm; Thanked: 3 times

by Calvin123 » Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:57 am

aspirant2011 wrote:guys I agree that the OA is A but my doubt is whether usage of their in option A is correct??????? because I don't think so that monkfish is plural noun........please clarify

Fish can be singular and can be plural as well.

This is what Ron wrote in Manhattan forum:

nope. "monkfish" is plural.

in fact, it HAS TO be plural. since it acts just like "fish", i'll explain in terms of "fish" instead:
if "fish" is singular, it must be used WITH AN ARTICLE ("a", "the", etc.)
i saw a fish swimming beneath me --> singular (1 fish)
i saw fish swimming beneath me --> plural (multiple fish)

same deal here. since it's not "a monkfish" or "the monkfish", it's plural. end of story.

Original post>> https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/old ... -t651.html

Like this post

aspirant2011: Legendary Member; Posts: 1574; Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 amFollowed by: 13 members; Thanked: 88 times

by aspirant2011 » Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:42 am

Calvin123 wrote:
aspirant2011 wrote:guys I agree that the OA is A but my doubt is whether usage of their in option A is correct??????? because I don't think so that monkfish is plural noun........please clarify

Fish can be singular and can be plural as well.

This is what Ron wrote in Manhattan forum:

nope. "monkfish" is plural.

in fact, it HAS TO be plural. since it acts just like "fish", i'll explain in terms of "fish" instead:
if "fish" is singular, it must be used WITH AN ARTICLE ("a", "the", etc.)
i saw a fish swimming beneath me --> singular (1 fish)
i saw fish swimming beneath me --> plural (multiple fish)

same deal here. since it's not "a monkfish" or "the monkfish", it's plural. end of story.

Original post>> https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/old ... -t651.html

I went through Ron post but still its not clear to me

........

shouldn't it be i saw fishes swimming beneath me ------> if it would have to be plural

when I say i saw fish swimming beneath me -------> then I think we talk about one fish

experts please comment.......

Like this post

sameerballani: Legendary Member; Posts: 544; Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:10 amFollowed by: 2 members; Thanked: 45 times

by sameerballani » Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:10 am

ok i went thru the post. Good dicussion must say !!
What i am able to decipher is that fish can be included in both countable(number) and non-countabe(amountt/mass) noun categories. So its usage is different depending on it usage(as countable or non-countable).
I will try with other example - HAIR (aristotle)

Countable: I have A HAIR in my tea. ITS of green color.
Non countable: I don't have MUCH hair. THEY fall every day. (somewhat true

, u got any sol->msg me

)

SO if we notice something(probably the learning from this question) common from the 2 examples(fish+hair) is that:

Whenever we have a noun such that it can be placed in both countable and non-countable categories, it is important/MUST that the noun is preceded by article(a/an/the) to show its singular nature, else (without article) it WILL be treated as Plural.

The authenticity of this needs to be verified by an expert.

Also, we need a list of such nouns to cram esp the one those have already occured..

I hope i make some sense.

Thanks

aspirant2011 wrote:
Calvin123 wrote:
aspirant2011 wrote:guys I agree that the OA is A but my doubt is whether usage of their in option A is correct??????? because I don't think so that monkfish is plural noun........please clarify

Fish can be singular and can be plural as well.

This is what Ron wrote in Manhattan forum:

nope. "monkfish" is plural.

in fact, it HAS TO be plural. since it acts just like "fish", i'll explain in terms of "fish" instead:
if "fish" is singular, it must be used WITH AN ARTICLE ("a", "the", etc.)
i saw a fish swimming beneath me --> singular (1 fish)
i saw fish swimming beneath me --> plural (multiple fish)

same deal here. since it's not "a monkfish" or "the monkfish", it's plural. end of story.

Original post>> https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/old ... -t651.html
I went through Ron post but still its not clear to me ........

shouldn't it be i saw fishes swimming beneath me ------> if it would have to be plural

when I say i saw fish swimming beneath me -------> then I think we talk about one fish

experts please comment.......

Like this post

GMAT/MBA Expert

lunarpower: GMAT Instructor; Posts: 3380; Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 amFollowed by: 1535 members; Thanked: 2256 times; GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:15 am

sameerballani wrote:I will try with other example - HAIR (aristotle)

Countable: I have A HAIR in my tea. ITS of green color.
Non countable: I don't have MUCH hair. THEY fall every day.

this example is incorrect; "hair" can't be plural.

it can be a countable noun, as in the first example, or a mass noun, as in the second.
if it's a mass noun ("i don't have much hair"), then it is still singular, like just about all mass nouns. (think about other mass nouns, such as "furniture", "silverware", etc. -- these things are singular, even though they refer to collections of individual objects.)

Whenever we have a noun such that it can be placed in both countable and non-countable categories, it is important/MUST that the noun is preceded by article(a/an/the) to show its singular nature, else (without article) it WILL be treated as Plural.

"a" and "an" signify singular, yes, but "the" doesn't help you -- "the" can be either singular or plural.
i.e., "the fish" can still be either one fish or several fish.

Also, we need a list of such nouns to cram esp the one those have already occured..

try a google search like
singular plural fish deer moose (in which these are 3 words that work this way). you should get many such lists.

Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions Ã Ron en franÃ§ais
Voit esittÃ¤Ã¤ kysymyksiÃ¤ Ron:lle myÃ¶s suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vÃªtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vÃªtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron

Like this post

Post new topic Locked

• Page 1 of 1

GMAT Course Reviews

559 reviews

1168 reviews

431 reviews

359 reviews

147 reviews

5/5

5 Star (560 Reviews)

"Target Test Prep is the closest to the official version of the GMAT exam, about 99% accuracy in terms of the quality and quantity of information. The course has excellently created singular sets of focused lessons and tests for every possible topic that one could come across in the official GMAT exam."

"The TTP course maximizes the efficiency of the time you spend studying. It will take time and effort but I could almost guarantee that if you complete the course exactly as it is laid out you will get an amazing score. They also have a very responsive team willing to help with any questions you might have."

"TTP has two things that I think no other test prep company offers: A teaching approach that reinforces understanding and an attitude that will give you the mental preparedness needed to succeed on the test. TTP gives you a deep understanding of the concept you need to know while teaching you how to think."

Write a Review