Split between A and C. I'll go with C as it uses "its" while A uses plural "their" to refer back to the fish

OA please

C uses ",which " - Wrong ( isnt ,which always wrong !!! Plz let me know the exceptions is any )

also in C if u remove the part between commas it becomes

There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught which contributes to its depletion through overfishing.

I will go with A

OA Plz?

Btw,
why is overfished incorrect?

c is right answer i believe

look at the usage of circumstance...there isnt any circumstance there

I agree with "winner" here. "a circumstance ..." makes A wordy.

I will go with C. OA please?

The plural of fish ....
If you are talking about more than one fish of the same species it's "fish" if you are talking about more than one species of fish then it's "fishes"

I will go with A
OA please

I stand by my original choice of C

Hi All,

The correct answer is C. It looks like everybody was able to eliminate answer choices B, D and E, so let's look more closely at A and C.

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.

The problem here has to do with what the phrase "legal limits" actually means. We are presented with the phrase in the first part of the sentence, next to a subject (cod and haddock), but without an explanation. The explanation doesn't occur until later in the sentence, when it is found next to a different subject (monkfish).

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.

This is correct. The thread above asks about the use of "which," rather than "that." In general, both words are used to introduce relative clauses (remember, a clause is a phrase that contains a subject and a verb). In this case, the subject is "depletion through overfishing," and the verb is "contributes." Our question, is should we use "that" or "which" to introduce this relative clause? It matters, because it can change the meaning of a sentence. Consider the following two sentences:

1. My car [that has a red hood and fat tires] needs painting.
2. My car, [which has a red hood and fat tires], needs painting.

In the first sentence, the use of "that" suggests that I own more than one car and need to explain to you that we are talking about a particular car of mine - the one with a red hood and fat tires. Without the relative clause, you wouldn't know which one of my cars needs the paint job.

The second sentence tells you that I own only one car and I am letting you know that it has a red hood and fat tires. I could leave out the information in that relative clause, and the sentence would still make sense.

Getting back to answer C, we use "which" because the sentence still makes sense without the final clause. There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught, but not on monkfish. This contributes to their decline in population.

I hope this helps.

I should also add that we have a free video that explains relative clauses and "that" versus "which" - check it out:

https://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat- ... on?id=1165

I know this will help!

David@GMATPrepNow wrote:I should also add that we have a free video that explains relative clauses and "that" versus "which" - check it out:

https://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat- ... on?id=1165

I know this will help!

Which should follow the noun that it modifies. In the option C which follows monkfish. How does Which modify LEGAL LIMITS?