-
gmatusa2010
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:22 am
- Thanked: 1 times
- Followed by:2 members
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.
1) "as cod and haddock" is a modifier of limits?
2) "on the size of..." is a prepositional modifier of limits.
3) "a circumstance..." is adverbial modifier?/ Appositive, further explaining "the lack of legal limits"?
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.
Comparing limits with cod or haddock
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.
1) What is the role of "but not for monkfish"? Why the double comma around it?
2) Which refers to monkfish rather than legal limits ? Can which be use properly here? What contributes to the depletion is the lack of legal limits. Wouldn't you need something that refers to the clause rather than the "closest primary noun"?
D. Unlike cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, which contributes to its depletion by being overfished.
Comparing catching monkfish with cod or haddock
E. Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, contributing to their depletion because they are overfished.
1) "contributing to their..." properly modifies the subject of the clause ("there are no legal limits")?Does it at all imply that the lack of similarity between size limits on catching cod and haddock and monkfish is the reason of depletion rather than the actual lack of size limits?
2) Their refers to what? Only one plural noun. Is this what is wrong with the choice?
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.
1) "as cod and haddock" is a modifier of limits?
2) "on the size of..." is a prepositional modifier of limits.
3) "a circumstance..." is adverbial modifier?/ Appositive, further explaining "the lack of legal limits"?
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.
Comparing limits with cod or haddock
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.
1) What is the role of "but not for monkfish"? Why the double comma around it?
2) Which refers to monkfish rather than legal limits ? Can which be use properly here? What contributes to the depletion is the lack of legal limits. Wouldn't you need something that refers to the clause rather than the "closest primary noun"?
D. Unlike cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, which contributes to its depletion by being overfished.
Comparing catching monkfish with cod or haddock
E. Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, contributing to their depletion because they are overfished.
1) "contributing to their..." properly modifies the subject of the clause ("there are no legal limits")?Does it at all imply that the lack of similarity between size limits on catching cod and haddock and monkfish is the reason of depletion rather than the actual lack of size limits?
2) Their refers to what? Only one plural noun. Is this what is wrong with the choice?
