Sentence Correction

Why the state can not have predators? NJ as a place ,why NJ can not be subject of the sentence to own predators?
thanks

It is very important to understand the meaning of predator : an animal that kills and eats other animals

So since NJ is a place and not an animal, so clearly we are talking about the deers

IMO-C(although, its wordy)


(

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

Dangling modifier : It is the deer population which is to be modified and not NJ

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

This time : wildlife officials are modified instead of deer

(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

This one is controversial choice but still better among the rest. It has only one problem : it is wordy(see the bold part). But I believe, we look for verbose error,once all the other errors are eliminated(sentence style should not be the first criteria to evaluate an answer)

D)Without natural predators and no hunting allowed in expanses of green suburban neighborhoods, New Jersey has a deer population that wildlife officials estimate to have

I did chose D, but I was not able to convince myself as to why "have" because in my opinion, "has" would fit the bill, population => singular)


(

E)Without natural predators and with expanses of green suburban neighborhoods where there is no hunting, wildlife officials in New Jersey estimate a deer population that has

modifies wildlife officials just like B

Hope this helps

This question is hard and somewhat ambiguous. I would have chosen D but the correct answer is C, which still baffles me.

New Jersey CAN have natural predators. I don't see anything wrong with that. Obviously, the GMAT people think differently.

Above all, I personally don't see how "expanses of green suburban neighborhoods where there is no hunting" can refer to deer population, as it does in C. I really don't. That HAS to refer to a place (NJ).

If the GMAT is structured ambiguously, competent people have the potential to underscore tremendously.

GMAT-Prep SC: Final solution at one place:

Important: The purpose of this post (and all the other posts by me) is to give a complete solution to all GMAT-Prep Verbal questions at one place. Sometimes students have to wade through dozens of posts to get to the final answer. My posts will give one complete and crisp solution required to arrive at the correct answer by eliminating the wrong ones. Some of the content in these posts may have been taken from various other sources (discussion forums).

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 expanses 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 suburban neighborhoods where there is no hunting, wildlife officials in New Jersey estimate a deer population that has

'With no natural predators' is a modifier ... so after the comma, the legitimate subject (the deer population) should come. Only C is correct.

A and E imply 'wildlife officials have no natural predators' ... nonsensical

B implies 'the estimate has no natural predators' ... nonsensical

D implies 'New Jersey has no natural predators' ... nonsensical ... also, D is not parallel. "Without natural predators" is definitely not parallel to "no hunting allowed".

C: Correct

ska7945 wrote: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 expanses 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 suburban neighborhoods where there is no hunting, wildlife officials in New Jersey estimate a deer population that has

In A and E, with no natural predators (A) and without natural predators (E) seem to modify WILDLIFE OFFICIALS. The intended meaning of the sentence is that the DEER POPULATION has no natural predators. Eliminate A and E.

In B, with no natural predators seems to modify wildlife officials' ESTIMATE. The intended meaning of the sentence is that the DEER POPULATION has no natural predators. Eliminate B.

In D, without...NO hunting allowed implies that some hunting IS allowed, changing the intended meaning of the sentence. Eliminate D.

The correct answer is C.

Only New Jersey can have no natural predators and expanses of green suburban neighborhoods that allow ho hunting. Consequently A, B, C and E can be eliminated.

The answer must be D...period.

Hi Mitch,
Your logic regarding modifiers is perfectly fine in this SC.

Can you also state correct/incorrect and Why for the following sentences?

1) This Problem can be solved with the the help of calculator (Correct/Incorrect) (Pl Ignore'this' has no antecedent)
2) With the help of calculator, this problem can be solved (Correct/Incorrect) (Pl Ignore'this' has no antecedent)

3) With the help of calculator, Martin can solve this problem (IMO, it is correct)(Pl Ignore'this' has no antecedent)

Firstly, excuse me for stepping in. I just wanted to put forth my understanding of modifiers and get the same reviewed by an expert at the same time.

So, hope you don't mind. Here I go.

Can you also state correct/incorrect and Why for the following sentences?

1) This Problem can be solved with the the help of calculator (Correct/Incorrect) (Pl Ignore'this' has no antecedent)

IMO. Correct as this is a straight clause without any modifier.

2) With the help of calculator, this problem can be solved (Correct/Incorrect) (Pl Ignore'this' has no antecedent)

Again, IMO correct. 'With ... calculator' modifies this problem. However, if an option which has the modifier modifying a person working with calculator and assuming other thing to be grammatically fine, I would go with the later choice.

3) With the help of calculator, Martin can solve this problem (IMO, it is correct)(Pl Ignore'this' has no antecedent)

[/quote]
IMO correct. This is what I was trying to suggest above.

Mitch, could you please correct me if my understanding regarding this is incorrect.