BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

doubt SC 8

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:32 am
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:14 members

doubt SC 8

by aditya8062 » Thu Nov 27, 2014 3:54 am
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


my concern: i can eliminate A for the MODIFIER ERROR; however, i would like to understand the error in the initial part of A "With no natural predators and expanses of green suburban neighborhoods that allow no hunting"---> is the parallelism in A wrongly suggesting this idea: "With no natural predators and WITH NO expanses of green suburban neighborhoods that allow no hunting"?

does this DOUBLE NEGATIVE makes the initial part in A wrong?
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Thu Nov 27, 2014 8:24 am
aditya8062 wrote:[is the parallelism in A wrongly suggesting this idea: "With no natural predators and WITH NO expanses of green suburban neighborhoods
To convey this meaning, we would say:
With no natural predators OR expanses of green suburban neighborhoods.
Generally, not X or Y means not X AND not Y.
:
A: predators and expanses...that allow no hunting
Here, the subject of allow could be construed as PREDATORS AND EXPANSES, implying that PREDATORS have the ability to allow hunting.
Not the intended meaning.
Eliminate A.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:32 am
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:14 members

by aditya8062 » Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:12 am
Thanks Guru
i have a little query about parallelism across "AND" . don't we have the liberty to choose the structure from RIGHT to LEFT while considering the parallelism across "AND" .
for instance, if i say: people in America AND India..."-----> implies "people in America AND in India..."


so considering the same LOGIC can't i interpret THE CONSTRUCTION (the one i have asked in my first post) as "With no natural predators and WITH NO expanses of green suburban neighborhoods that allow no hunting". what is preventing me to view this construct like this?
predators and expanses of green suburban neighborhoods ...that allow no hunting
Here, the subject of allow could be construed as PREDATORS AND EXPANSES, implying that PREDATORS have the ability to allow hunting.
Guru, i can understand the meaning of the expression "expanses of green suburban neighborhoods" BUT is it possible to have "predators of green suburban neighborhoods"?

thanks
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Thu Nov 27, 2014 10:12 am
aditya8062 wrote:Thanks Guru
i have a little query about parallelism across "AND" . don't we have the liberty to choose the structure from RIGHT to LEFT while considering the parallelism across "AND" .
for instance, if i say: people in America AND India..."-----> implies "people in America AND in India..."


so considering the same LOGIC can't i interpret THE CONSTRUCTION (the one i have asked in my first post) as "With no natural predators and WITH NO expanses of green suburban neighborhoods that allow no hunting". what is preventing me to view this construct like this?
Yes, a reader might wonder whether with no serves to modify both predators and expanses.
But no X's and Y's is generally not a valid construction.
To convey no X's and no Y's, we generally say no X's OR Y's.
Incorrect: No friends and relatives were present.
Correct: No friends OR relatives were present.
For this reason, the intended meaning of with no natural predators and expanses is not crystal clear
Guru, i can understand the meaning of the expression "expanses of green suburban neighborhoods" BUT is it possible to have "predators of green suburban neighborhoods"?
Because predators has its own defining adjective (natural), I think that most readers will construe that the prepositional phrase attributed to expanses -- of green suburban neighborhoods -- does not also serve to modify predators.

That said, it would be possible in another context to say predators of green suburban neighborhoods:
Predators of green suburban neighborhoods include the wolf and the coyote.

I wouldn't delve too deeply into the different ways an invalid construction can be interpreted.
More important is to recognize how the construction in the OA makes the intended meaning crystal clear:
With no natural predators and with expanses of green suburban neighborhoods..
Here, the addition of the with in red makes it crystal clear that no natural does NOT serve to modify expanses.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:32 am
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:14 members

by aditya8062 » Thu Nov 27, 2014 10:25 am
Thanks Guru
To convey no X's and no Y's, we generally say no X's OR Y's.
Incorrect: No friends and relatives were present.
Correct: No friends OR relatives were present.
now i understand it
Thanks and regards
Top
Post new topic Locked
• Page 1 of 1