There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock,

[RonPurewal]

I have some questions about “unlike” :
1.Is B wrong because it compares the size to cod and haddock or because unlike can only compare two nouns (“there be” is a clause )

the second of these is somewhat accurate, but the problem is more fundamental.

remember—the first step of EVERY sentence correction problem is "Determine the intended message".

here, the message is that certain legal provisions apply to cod and haddock, but not to monkfish. the sentence is NOT saying that monkfish ARE UNLIKE cod and haddock.
in other words, the sentence does not express any contrast between different types of fish.

therefore, the appearance of "unlike cod and haddock" creates a nonsense sentence, regardless of whether it is grammatically legitimate.

[Crisc419]

technically, this comparison is baffling me.

what exactly is baffling you?
the sentence is stating a contrast: condition X is true for cod and haddock, but false for monkfish.

here's another example, similarly constructed:
[i]There is no snow in Los Angeles, as there is in more northern locations.

after eliminating other choices, I chose the right one. but i am not familiar with the usage of "as" in the choice A.

"as" is commonly used to express the similar consitution. i guess it's ok to me, if your sentence is written:

1/there is much snow in XXX, as there is in northern locations.

2/ there is no snow in Los Angeles, as there is not in most of southern locations.

I know i am wrong, so could you point out what i have missed and help me understand why "as" can be used in the conditions that are very different.

thanks very much

Cris

[RonPurewal]

your two examples are for things that are the same in both places. (e.g., both LA and the other southern locations lack snow).
this sentence is for something that differs between the two places mentioned.

if you understand those two examples—and you understand that the point this time is to highlight a difference, rather than a similarity—then the structure of this sentence should be self-explanatory.

[xinj576]

Hi Ron, could you please explain what is wrong with E?
Is it because "catching cod and haddock" which is following "Unlike" is not a noun?
But I think it is a gerund so it's a noun and it's grammatically legitimate.
Or is it because E changes the intended meaning? But how? I'm afraid that I'm not sure about it.

Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

Unlike X, Y is/does/[verb] Z

^^ this is how sentences with "unlike" must be constructed. (sentences with "like" have to be constructed in the same basic way.) the point is that nothing can be stuck in front of "Y".

...so, for this sentence to make sense, it would have to be written as something like
Unlike catching cod and haddock, catching monkfish is/does/[verb] xxxxxxxxx
if "catching monkfish" is not RIGHT THERE—DIRECTLY after that comma—then the sentence is a nonsense construction.

[xinj576]

That's a perfect explanation which makes everything clear.
Thanks Ron!!! Your explanations in many threads have been a great help for me. I did not expect such a prompt answer, though:)
Have a nice day! ^^

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.

[SonT457]

Hi Ron, for option C, is it correct to say "... contribute to depleting..."? I think "contribute to something (eg. the depletion, the destruction, the discovery, etc.) is the correct idiom.

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Do you mean answer B? I guess there are some circumstances in which you could say 'contributes to -ing', but here 'contributes to depleting them' is certainly suspicious.

[THANHD377]

hi experts,


can I eliminate E because "contributing" doesn't make sense with "there" - the subject of the previous clause?

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

No, you can't. In answer E, 'contributing to ...' is what we call a comma -ing modifier. This typically modifies the whole clause that comes before it. Take this (correct) example:

Rain fell heavily, causing flooding in some areas.

What caused flooding in some areas? It was not just the rain, but the fact that it fell heavily, i.e. the whole clause.

The important takeaway from answer E is to notice the wrong comparison, as discussed above.

[FaysalT485]

Hi experts,

In answer choice A, what is the appositive modifying ? it looks to me as if it should modify the complete sentence preceding it, but since appositives work similar to ",which", i crossed of answer A.

thanks

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

That's because this isn't an appositive. Nouns can be used in more than one way, and it looks like you were being too restrictive in your search. This kind of modifier is called an 'absolute phrase'; take a look at chapter 10 in the SC strategy guide for more on this.