Sentence Correction

Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than seventeen million pounds of shad in a single year, but by 1920, over-fishing and the proliferation of milldams and culverts that have blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less than four million pounds.

(A) that have blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less
(B) that blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less
(C) that blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams reduced landings to a lower amount
(D) having blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams reduced landings to less
(E) having blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams had reduced landings to an amount lower

OA: B

This sentence has an interesting twist to it, in that the tense correctly used in describing the most recent event is the past perfect.

The reason for that is presence of the prepositional phrase by 1920.

A simplified version could be By 1920, over-fishing had reduced landings.

The reason the past perfect is correct is that it fits the idea that the landings were reduced over the time period prior to 1920.

Now let's check the answer choices.

(A) The present perfect have blocked does not make sense in a sentence describing past events.

(B) This version correctly describes the past events. By 1920 things that blocked shad had reduced landings.

(C) In this version the simple past reduced does not make sense, and to a lower amount than four million pounds is an awkwardly worded and ineffective comparison.

(D) In this version the use of the modifier having blocked wrecks the parallelism of the list and distorts the meaning.

over-fishing and requires a noun as the next item in the list. the proliferation of milldams and culverts having blocked is not a noun or noun structure.

Also, the use of the simple past reduced does not make sense.

(E) This repeats the list error of D and reduced landings to an amount lower than is questionable wording that is less succinct than reduced landings to less than.

The correct answer is B.

(B) This version correctly describes the past events. By 1920 things that blocked shad had reduced landings.

(C) In this version the simple past reduced does not make sense and to a lower amount than four million pounds is an awkwardly worded and ineffective comparison.

Also amount, does not work with landings, as amount is used for non countable quantities, for example, amount of water, whereas landings are countable.

Hi Marty ,

Just quick question.

Can you please explain the role of LESS in B.

Also LESS is used for non countable nouns, so how come this is correct and AMOUNT is wrong?

Please explain.

Many thanks in advance.

Kavin

Needgmat wrote:Hi Marty ,

Just quick question.

Can you please explain the role of LESS in B.

Also LESS is used for non countable nouns, so how come this is correct and AMOUNT is wrong?

Please explain.

Many thanks in advance.

Kavin

Good question.

Notice that, in B, the factors "reduced landings to less than four million pounds."

So less clearly refers to the weight, and so landings, which seems to be a plural noun, is recast as meaning something along the lines of "the of weight of shad."

When we talk about weight, as is the case when we talk about time and distance, we generally use less rather than fewer.

How far is it to the next town? Less than two miles.

How long until we get there? Less than ten minutes.

How much do our bicycles weigh? Less than twenty pound each.

To make this more clear, consider that each of these quantities often uses a singular verb.

Two miles IS a short distance.

Ten minutes IS a not much time.

Twenty pounds IS not much weight.

Ahah!

So actually in C, it's not that amount is wrong on its own. The comparison is a mess.

In E maybe amount is wrong and maybe it's not. Can landings be reduced to an amount? I am not sure, but the wording in E is not as succinct as to less than, and meanwhile the verb issue rules E out anyway.

Hi Marty,

Can you please explain why the comparison in C is messy. Why can't we say less amount than 4 million pounds?

[email protected] wrote:Hi Marty,

Can you please explain why the comparison in C is messy. Why can't we say less amount than 4 million pounds?

If the sentence were to say the the following, it would still have issues but be a little better.

reduced landings to an amount lower than four million pounds.

However, there is a clear issue with C, because it says the following, in which lower is not effectively placed.

reduced landings to a lower amount than four million pounds.

So the version does not say that the amount is "lower than". It says that landings were reduced to a "lower amount than" which, while decipherable, is technically nonsensical.

In other words, the point is not that the landings were reduced to a lower amount, which meaning is what the version using C conveys. The point is that the amount is lower than four million pounds.

Also, one could argue that in landings were reduced to a lower amount, landings, which seems countable at that point in the sentence, appears to be connected to amount, which is used for uncountable quantities. So, amount does not really work with landings.

Needgmat wrote:Just quick question.

Can you please explain the role of LESS in B.

Also LESS is used for non countable nouns, so how come this is correct and AMOUNT is wrong?

I discuss this issue here:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/india-s-rice ... 91214.html

[email protected] wrote:Hi Marty,

Can you please explain why the comparison in C is messy. Why can't we say less amount than 4 million pounds?

Incorrect:
Mary spent an amount less than ten dollars.
Here, the portion in red adds no meaning, since less than ten dollars on its own constitutes an amount.
The following is sufficient to convey the intended meaning:
Mary spent less than ten dollars.

In C, amount and four million pounds are similarly redundant.

joealam1 wrote:Around 1900, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay area landed more than seventeen million pounds of shad in a single year, but by 1920, over-fishing and the proliferation of milldams and culverts that have blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less than four million pounds.

(A) that have blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less
(B) that blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams had reduced landings to less
(C) that blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams reduced landings to a lower amount
(D) having blocked shad from migrating up their spawning streams reduced landings to less
(E) having blocked shad migrations up their spawning streams had reduced landings to an amount lower

OA: B

Hi experts,
Please help
I am confused about "having blocked..." in D and E.
1) The OG says: "The present-perfect participial phrase must be set off with commas." and I don't understand why.
2) I also think "having blocked..." modifies culverts just as "that" does. But there must be something wrong here?
Could you elaborate these questions? Thank you in advance.

Hi, instructor,
I think your explanation is always clear, I wish you could help me .
what is "having blocked" doing here, is it completely wrong?
And what is the correct usage of "having done"
I feel confused all the time<i class="em em-pray"></i>