Ridley turtle

[thanghnvn]

even I do not know the difference between "law to do" and " law doing" I get the right answer, using common sense.

Howeve, the Ron' explanation of the difference is great. We now have clear reason for eliminating choice E.

Just one comment.

in NOUN DOING, DOING presents the content of Noun.

in NOUN TO DO, TO DO presents the purpose of the Noun.

is that right?

[jlucero]

Ron,
Is the following analogy correct?
I just made it up in the course of my reviewing OG 13 SC (in the way you mentioned in your vids)

Arms act was passed to reduce random shootings. CORRECT
Arms act was passed to penalize people carrying an unlicensed firearm. WRONG.
Am I getting it correctly?

Yes* you are getting it correct (adj) (not correctly(adv))

*Unless the REASON for passing the act was to penalize people. But logically that is more of a means to an end.

[jlucero]

even I do not know the difference between "law to do" and " law doing" I get the right answer, using common sense.

Howeve, the Ron' explanation of the difference is great. We now have clear reason for eliminating choice E.

Just one comment.

in NOUN DOING, DOING presents the content of Noun.

in NOUN TO DO, TO DO presents the purpose of the Noun.

is that right?

In this question, yes. But there's (almost) always an exception to these very general types of rules.

[Ivy Bai]

Hi Ron, I wonder if requiring here is a participial?
If it is , do we have to add a comma before the participial? Since according to OG 13 P761, the explanation of 126-C:"if used as a participial, creating would have to be preceded by a comma"

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron, I wonder if requiring here is a participial?
If it is , do we have to add a comma before the participial? Since according to OG 13 P761, the explanation of 126-C:"if used as a participial, creating would have to be preceded by a comma"

I don't know the terminology here. Even if I did know those terms, they would do little to elucidate what is going on here.

"Requiring" here is an -ING modifier without a comma. That kind of modifier should describe the noun that comes before it.
E.g.,
This restaurant will provide free food to runners finishing the marathon. (correct)
--> "Finishing the marathon" describes the runners.

In the OG problem you're quoting, you're not trying to describe a noun; you're trying to describe the whole idea in the previous clause. That's what -ING modifiers WITH commas do.
E.g.,
I dropped the groceries onto the floor, scaring the dog. (correct)
--> The floor didn't scare the dog. What scared the dog was my dropping the groceries on the floor.

These are different things. You can't memorize random rules for where to put commas, because you have to understand what you're trying to say first. Without meaning, grammar doesn't even exist.

If I changed either of the examples above to the other kind of modifier, they'd be wrong.

This restaurant will provide free food to runners, finishing the marathon.
--> Nonsense; implies that the restaurant is running a marathon while providing food.

I dropped the groceries onto the floor scaring the dog.
--> Nonsense; implies that the floor scared the dog.

[vinaym.gemini]

Hello ,

Please correct me if my understanding is wrong for the sentence .

'Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare turtle, saying that their compliance with laws requiring that turtle excluder devices on shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles.'

1) 'saying that ...'. Here 'that' creates a relative clause and it points to 'the resurgence ' ?

2) 'requiring that ...' Here 'that' creates a relative clause and it points to 'compliance' ?

Thanks ,
Vinay .

[RonPurewal]

I don't know what "relative clause" means, so I can't help you there.

More importantly, you're not trying to understand how these constructions work -- because you're putting too much effort into trying to name them.

Try to do this without fancy labels.
* What's your understanding of how each "that" works?
* Can you write your own sentences using each kind of "that"?
These are the things that count. The names are irrelevant distractions.

[vivekkapoor73]

"require" can also be used simply with a direct object, as in
i require perfection.
this device requires four AA batteries.
these are perfectly good sentences.

--

(b) is the correct answer. it uses "require" with a direct object, as discussed above, and it also correctly uses the singular verb "is" with the singular subject "compliance". (we know "compliance" is the subject, because "with ..." is a prepositional phrase that serves only as a modifier of that subject.)

--

(c)
"protect" is a plural verb and so doesn't agree with the singular subject "compliance".

--

(d)
"are" is a plural verb and so doesn't agree with the singular subject "compliance".

--

(d) and (e)
"laws to require..." isn't a correct idiom if you're discussing the actual text of the laws themselves. if you were discussing the ultimate purpose of those laws, then this could be idiomatic.
examples:
laws specifying long jail sentences for drunk drivers --> correct (___ing), since that's what the laws actually specify.
laws to specify long jail sentences for drunk drivers --> incorrect (that's not the ultimate purpose of the laws)
laws to discourage drunk driving --> correct (this IS actually the ultimate purpose of the laws)

Hi Ron,
With reference to option d and e as explained above "laws to require" could be idiomatic if we are talking of ultimate purpose.
but as per archive recording dtd 17th feb 2012 at 24:02 min it was explained "My plan for making money is to sell clothes" where for making is ultimate purpose and to sell is not the ultimate purpose.Then how "laws to require" can be correct while denoting ultimate purpose
Kindly explain.

[RonPurewal]

"require" can also be used simply with a direct object, as in
i require perfection.
this device requires four AA batteries.
these are perfectly good sentences.

--

(b) is the correct answer. it uses "require" with a direct object, as discussed above, and it also correctly uses the singular verb "is" with the singular subject "compliance". (we know "compliance" is the subject, because "with ..." is a prepositional phrase that serves only as a modifier of that subject.)

--

(c)
"protect" is a plural verb and so doesn't agree with the singular subject "compliance".

--

(d)
"are" is a plural verb and so doesn't agree with the singular subject "compliance".

--

(d) and (e)
"laws to require..." isn't a correct idiom if you're discussing the actual text of the laws themselves. if you were discussing the ultimate purpose of those laws, then this could be idiomatic.
examples:
laws specifying long jail sentences for drunk drivers --> correct (___ing), since that's what the laws actually specify.
laws to specify long jail sentences for drunk drivers --> incorrect (that's not the ultimate purpose of the laws)
laws to discourage drunk driving --> correct (this IS actually the ultimate purpose of the laws)

Hi Ron,
With reference to option d and e as explained above "laws to require" could be idiomatic if we are talking of ultimate purpose.
but as per archive recording dtd 17th feb 2012 at 24:02 min it was explained "My plan for making money is to sell clothes" where for making is ultimate purpose and to sell is not the ultimate purpose.Then how "laws to require" can be correct while denoting ultimate purpose
Kindly explain.

In that example, "to sell clothes" isn't used in the same way. It's not used as a modifier ("an xxxx to sell clothes"); it's used as a noun.
My plan is to sell clothes.
("To + verb" can also be the subject of a sentence, usually when speaking of abstract thoughts: To know my dog is to love him.)

In general english, "a plan for ___ing" and "a plan to ___" are often used interchangeably. I don't know whether GMAC has ever expressed a preference between the two.

In the sentence you've quoted above, "plan for making money" is stylistically preferable, because it avoids the ugliness of having two "to ___"s in a small space. But the GMAT doesn't test stylistic considerations, so that is a non-issue.

[sinyuchen.828]

Hi Ron,
i just wonder if i replace the word"protect"with "protects" in (A)
can make the choice correct ?

that is to say: requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protects

thanks in advance!

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,
i just wonder if i replace the word"protect"with "protects" in (A)
can make the choice correct ?

that is to say: requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protects

thanks in advance!

That sentence isn't strictly wrong, but it would never appear as an officially correct answer, for various stylistic reasons that aren't tested on the exam.

Remember "” Don't edit GMAC's sentences!

If you try to edit GMAC's sentences, you will almost always introduce complications that aren't tested on the actual exam. The GMAT tests a very narrow band of the potential problems in written English, so, if you write random sentences, there's a nearly 100% likelihood that they will contain problems that are outside the scope of the GMAT. That's exactly what is happening here.

Your hands are presumably full enough with the choices that are already there"”and there's no positive utility in editing them anyway (you'll clearly never have to edit a sentence on the exam!). Don't do it.

If you want to create your own sentences that illustrate one topic at a time"”i.e,. simpler sentences, with a separate sentence for each concept you're studying"”then that's a much better use of your time.

[zerglingzxzxy]

Hi Ron
I have read this thread, however, I still have one question regarding to the meaning of this sentence.
I understand the "official" meaning of the clause "saying that their compliance with laws requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting". This clause means that "the content of the law is to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets".

However, when I tried to understand Option E, I found that another understand "saying that their compliance with laws to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting" was also viable - the clause can mean that "the behavior of their compliance is to require turtle-excluder devices installed; the compliance is also obey the law;" i.e. both "to require turtle-excluder devices ..." and "with laws" modify the word "compliance".

Could you help explain this point? Thanks :)

[zerglingzxzxy]

Hi Ron
I have read this thread, however, I still have one question regarding to the meaning of this sentence.
I understand the "official" meaning of the clause "saying that their compliance with laws requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting". This clause means that "the content of the law is to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets".

However, when I tried to understand Option E, I found that another understand "saying that their compliance with laws to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting" was also viable - the clause can mean that "the behavior of their compliance is to require turtle-excluder devices installed; the compliance is also obey the law;" i.e. both "to require turtle-excluder devices ..." and "with laws" modify the word "compliance".

Could you help explain this point? Thanks :)

I can answer part of my question -
The compliance with laws costs lots of money.
The girl with a red bag is my daughter.
seems the two "with" are different here - i can say "with a red bag" modifies "girl", but when i try to say "with laws" modifies "compliance", it is very weird.
but i still don't know why the two "with" are different :(

[RonPurewal]

However, when I tried to understand Option E, I found that another understand "saying that their compliance with laws to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting" was also viable - the clause can mean that "the behavior of their compliance is to require turtle-excluder devices installed; the compliance is also obey the law;" i.e. both "to require turtle-excluder devices ..." and "with laws" modify the word "compliance".

Could you help explain this point? Thanks :)

"Requiring" a piece of equipment is not something that local shrimpers can logically do, in the same way that drivers can't require speed limits on highways. Such requirements must be imposed by the law.

[RonPurewal]

but i still don't know why the two "with" are different :(

In just about every language in the world, common transition words can have multiple meanings. (This shouldn't be a surprise, since languages have to be capable of expressing every thought that anyone might ever want to express, ever.)

In fact, essentially all prepositions (with, in, on, for, etc.) have lots and lots and lots of different meanings.
E.g., a book on a shelf is not the same "on" as a book on World War II.