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

A) requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimps nets protect
B) requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting
C) that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets protect
D) to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets are protecting
E) to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting

Dear Stacey/Ron:
According to MG SC Guide, when we use require we are talking about an uncertainty. Require must be followed by one of this constructions: require that xy, require of x to do y, require x to y. However none of this is used in the correct answer.
Analizing the sentence key points: Subject: Local Shrimpers Verb:held Direct object: conferece Adverbial modifier: saying Relative clause: compliance with law Noun Modifier: requiring

Many tks in advance for your magistral explanation.

I figured out that as compliance function as the subject of the relative clause the verb protect should be singular. Pls. if you could explain between B and E, tks.

"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)

Thanks ron.
I understand the difference here. But, in 4th edition, page 253.
You illustrate several sentences that confuse me.

Unlike: A plan conquering the world is in his files.
Probable: A plan to conquer the world is in his files.

Could you give me more explain on this topic? how can we use this topic to choose correct answers during the exam?

thanks

an -ing construction that DOESN'T follow a comma is an adjectival modifier. i.e., it modifies the directly preceding noun.

therefore, this means that the plan itself is actually conquering the world (an absurd interpretation).


this is the purpose of the plan, so the usage is similar to that of "laws" above.

if you want, you can just memorize this as an idiom.

How the use the the "Present Progressive Tense" is justified here.

The action has leg in past and also is going on in present, hence present perfect should be used
- Am I right:

Please Ron.

read here
post51809.html#p51809

Hey

I have a question

MSC mentions that the verb "require" is a bossy verb that can use both subjunctives or infinitives. I guess the best answers should be

"Requiring that turtle-excluder be on shrimp nets protects" -> using subjunctives

or

"Requiring turtle-excluder to be on shrimp nets is protecting"-> Using infinitives
i see none of the two in the options.


A) requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimps nets protect (wrong as the verb should comply with the singular subject "compliance", hence should be protects)
B) requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting (there is no infinitive , still considered the right answer)
C) that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets protect(SUb-verb agreement again)
D) to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets are protecting(subject verb)
E) to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting( to require is awkward and unidiomatic)


Please point my mistake as this is a GMAT prep question.. I would love to be wrong

Hi,

"Require" is not functioning as a verb in this sentence. It is functioning as a modifier modifying laws:

...compliance with laws requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting....

The underlined portion above is an essential modifier describing "laws".

Hope this helps

Regards

Sunil

thanks Sunil..

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor

(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)[/quote]

Ron, pls, help
Can I say that NOUN DOING is used to talk of CONTENT
NOUND TO DO is used to talk of PURPOSE.

for generalization. This is logice point and will be tested on gmat.

Ron, in the following (also from gmatprep ) NOUN GOING and NOUND TO DO are the same

Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal, and its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel.
A. that suggests that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal, and its trunk originally evolved
B. that has suggested the elephant descended from an aquatic animal, its trunk originally evolving
C. suggesting that the elephant had descended from an aquatic animal with its trunk originally evolving
D. to suggest that the elephant has descended from an aquatic animal and its trunk originally evolved
E. to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal and that its trunk originally evolved

pls, Ron , comment on NOUN DOING vs NOUN TO DO

if those are actually the complete constructions, then your generalization seems valid.

however, you should be very careful to ascertain that these actually are the complete constructions. if they are smaller parts of some larger construction, then you may have to look at other things.

for instance: i eat eggs and cottage cheese with every meal to promote muscle growth.
--> in this sentence, you can't look at "meal to promote...", because that is not actually a construction. the construction is
(i eat eggs and cottage cheese (with every meal)) (to promote muscle growth).
so, in this case, the infinitive "to promote" applies to the entire preceding clause, not to the noun in front of it.

per forum rules, please find another thread that is actually based on this problem, and re-post your question there. thanks.