the establishment ..., the closing ..., and requiring ...
not parallel.

Makes sense. Works like all other noun modifiers.
Thanks.

yep

Hi Ron,

Please confirm my understanding on which and including-

In this problem, use of "Which" is correct because "which" can only refer to "remedies" meaningfully. "Which" cannot refer to population because it does not make sense, so use of "which" and "including" both are correct. We cannot rule out any option just on the basis of which and including.

Can we use below POE -

A & B out because as "remedies" need "include" plural verb and not "includes" singular verb.

C out because establishment ..., the closing of ..and requiring are not parallel.

D Correct.

E out because of meaning error. Limits is on the number of sharks not on the sharks of specific size.

sorry, wrong. that's not how "which" works.

it's good to see that you're thinking about meaning here -- i.e., you're talking about what "which" is supposed to modify, and that's a good sign -- but there is also a grammatical rule for "which": it has to refer either (a) to the nearest NOUN, or (b) to the nearest NOUN + PREP PHRASE.

so, "which" here would be ok if it stood for either (a) "shark population" or (b) "decline in the shark population".
but, "which" is not allowed to stand for "remedies to reverse a decline in the shark population".

Thanks for clarifying my confusion.

Please correct me, if I misunderstood your advice -

If we take “a number of remedies” as noun and “to reverse a decline in the shark population” as prep phrase, still “which” cannot be used because –

1) As per your rule “which” can refer to “NEAREST NOUN” or “NEAREST NOUN + PREP PHRASE “ and so “which” cannot refer to far noun “a number of remedies” or “a number of remedies … population” and also
2) “Which” cannot refer to a clause.

"to reverse" is an infinitive, not a prepositional phrase. (it's possible for “to” to be a preposition -- as in I'm going to school -- but, if it appears in an infinitive, it is not a preposition.)
therefore, the rest of this analysis is unfounded.

Thanks a lot Ron !!!

sure.

Ron，thanks for ur wonderful explanation here!
but the explanation reminds me of a sentence in the Manhattan SC GUIDE 4th edition.here is the sentence
"Our system of Presidential elections favors states,such as Delaware,that by population areover-represented in the Electoral College." it is on page 234.
i have two questions about this sentence.
1.i think the word "that" is wrongly used here, and it should be replaced by "which",because we know that it should be "which" following a comma.
2.as you said "which has to refer either (a) to the nearest NOUN, or (b) to the nearest NOUN + PREP PHRASE."
but i want to know is that whether "which" can skip
the phrase set off by commas,even if the phrase is quite long and complex?and what about a clause set off by commas?

1. I concur with you and await for expert’s advise.

2. IMO, if the phrase/clause does not have a noun that can be antecedent of "which" then "which" can skip a phrase/clause else no.

Example -
a) Our system of Presidential elections favors states, such as Delaware, which by population are over-represented in the Electoral College. => Correct “which” is plural over here and cannot refer to singular Delaware, so will skip the phrase and refer to “states”.

b) I live on Earth, my ancestor’s home, which revolves around the Sun in 365 day. => Incorrect “which” can refer to home or earth, so cannot skip the phrase and refer to Earth.

HTH

incorrect, because the comma doesn't belong to the surrounding sentence.

in other words, the surrounding sentence is just "... states such as delaware...", and both commas belong to the modifier that has been inserted. if you remove that modifier, both of the commas disappear along with it.

you can figure this out by yourself, if you understand the difference between modifiers with commas ("nonessential" or "nonrestrictive" modifiers -- basically, modifiers that actually narrow the possibilities for something) and modifiers without them ("nonessential" or "nonrestrictive" modifiers -- basically, modifiers that don't narrow/eliminate any possibilities).

the sentence is clearly not talking about all states; it is referring only to states that are overrepresented in the elections. (it's statistically impossible for this modifier to refer to the states in general, because "overrepresented" means "above the average ratio" -- something that clearly can't be true in all cases. if some states are overrepresented, then others must be underrepresented.)