Hi Instructors ,

I was not able to paste the image of the problem from the GMAT Prep Software.

I have a question regarding this problem.

Can we follow the below two step approach to solve this problem?

1) Use a 2-3 parallelism split of and : Result A , D and E eliminated.
2) Between B and C , the modifier With no natural... can only modify the Deer population and not wildlife officials.

Sorry, no more help on this problem until we know it’s legit..

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor

Hi tim ,


This problem is a legitimate one.

I am not able to figure out how to post an image on the MGMAT Forum.

Please let me know the procedure.

Thanks

you can select “img” from the buttons above the posting area, and then use those tags to enclose a valid web address for the image.

alternatively, you could simply post the image to a site such as postimage.org, and then just throw the resulting address into your post.

Hi ,

This Problem is legitimate
http://s14.postimage.org/71vol2dv5/MGPost_Image.jpg

Hi Instructors ,

Can you now answer my below Ques

Can we follow the below two step approach to solve this problem?

1) Use a 2-3 parallelism split of and : Result A , D and E eliminated.
2) Between B and C , the modifier With no natural... can only modify the Deer population and not wildlife officials.

there's no problem with parallelism in choice (e); “with x” is parallel to “without y”. however, you can eliminate (e) (and also (a)) with the same observation about modifiers.

I agree C is oa.

The problem is that WITH PHRASE+COMMA can modify the following clause but dose not need refers to a noun in the clause. choice C is the case. It seems that this is absolute construction. But forget the name. Choice C is perfect not best.

in other case, WITH PHRASE+COMMA can modify the following clause and, in parallel, refers to a noun in the clause.

the following from gmatprep, already dicussed in this forum, is similar to choice C. in the following, D is oa.

//Because of wireless service costs plummeting in the last year, and as mobile phones are increasingly common, many people// now using their mobile phones to make calls across a wide region at night and on weekends, when numerous wireless companies provide unlimited airtime for a relatively small monthly fee.

A. Because of wireless service costs plummeting in the last year, and as mobile phones are increasingly common, many people

B. As the cost of wireless service plummeted in the last year and as mobile phones became increasingly common, many people

C. In the last year, with the cost of wireless service plummeting, and mobile phones have become increasingly common, there are many people

D. With the cost of wireless service plummeting in the last year and mobile phones becoming increasingly common, many people are

E. While the cost of wireless service has plummeted in the last year and mobile phones are increasingly common, many people are

Is my thinking correct?, pls, confirm, choice C is perfect not best.

thanghnvn, i don't know what "perfect not best" means. are you actually saying that choice (c) is perfect?

in this example, choice (c) has very clear non-parallelism. there are 2 ideas that must be parallel here:
(1) rates for wireless service are plummeting, and
(2) cell phones are becoming extremely common.

choice (c) doesn't put these ideas in parallel, so it's wrong.

if you have further questions about this particular problem, you should find a thread about this problem and post on it -- you shouldn't derail the current thread.
if you can't find such a thread (which almost certainly exists on the forum), then go ahead and start a new one if necessary.

Hi Ron,
In the actual question in this post ...
In option C isnt "where there is no hunting" (neednt be because of a rule) differ from "allow no hunting" (rule to be followed) in option A ? I eliminated option C thinking it is deviating from the data in option A.
Can you please explain this?

Thanks,
Varun

well, this is one of those things where you have to exercise a certain modicum of real-world judgment.
if "there is no hunting" in some particular place, it's not because of pure magic!, nor is it because all of that area's residents are chill, tranquil peaceniks -- neither of these interpretations would be reasonable.
instead, if "there is no hunting" somewhere, the only reasonable explanation is that there's a law against hunting in that particular locale.