# Question: Regulating Pet Shops

## Comment on Regulating Pet Shops

### I understand the use of the

I understand the use of the semicolon to separate two independent clauses, but how is "this fact explains why various animal welfare groups want the government to regulate pet shops.' an independent clause? It seems totally dependent on the first sentence. If it is a stand alone sentence, what is "this fact" relating to?

### That's a great point.

That's a great point.

We actually don't consider missing pronoun antecedents when determining whether a clause is dependent or not.

### Is this a universally

Is this a universally accepted law, given that there aren't any other errors? So if there are two exact sentences with a difference of comma and semicolon, we chose the one with a semicolon in such cases?

### I'm pretty sure you'll never

I'm pretty sure you'll never see an official GMAT question in which two options differ only by a comma/semicolon.

### Hi Brent, could you maybe

Hi Brent, could you maybe explain this in a bit more detail. For me the second sentence is definitely a dependent clause, therefore the semicollon options were scratched off immediately. Thank you.

### Actually, the second part

Actually, the second part (after the comma) is not a clause at all, since we don't have a subject for EXPLAINING.

That said, even if we did have a dependent clause in the original wording, that would only be justification to not have a semicolon for answer choice A. It doesn't mean we can't "fix" the sentence by turning the dependent clause into an independent clause (by adding a subject) and then separating the two independent clauses with a semicolon.

Does that help?

Cheers,
Brent

### Hi, Brent

Hi, Brent
So you mean the second part is a gerund phrase? How can I identify a clause next time? It has something to do with express a complete thought, but it is not really clear for me what did means.
And why can't we "fix" the sentence by adding a subject, what is in that case missing?
Would be great if you could help me with this.
Best,
Niek

### The second part is a phrase,

The second part is a phrase, since it doesn't have a subject and verb.
That is, we have no subject performing the action of explaining.

Here's our video on clauses: https://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat-sentence-correction/video/1154

There are many ways to fix a sentence to make it correct.
For example, "Joe likes eating salad, Sue enjoys opera." is not correct since we are separating 2 independent clauses with a comma. Here are a few ways to fix the sentence:
- Joe likes eating salad; Sue enjoys opera.
- Joe likes eating salad. Sue enjoys opera.
- Joe likes eating salad, and Sue enjoys opera.

ASIDE: the second part is not a gerund phrase, because EXPLAINING is not functioning as a noun (more on gerunds here: https://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat-sentence-correction/video/1155)

Cheers,
Brent

### 'Hi Brent,

'Hi Brent,
As I learned through your online course, sentences that are separated by a semicolon are independent clauses. Than the next sentence has to be a independent clause right? Why is this sentence an independent clause? "This fact explains why various animal walfare groups want the government to regulate pet shops." I think I miss some common knowlegde here. Would be great if you could help me with it.

Best,
Niek

### If we have a semicolon

If we have a semicolon separating two clauses, then both clauses must be independent.
This fact (subject) explains (verb) . . .

Cheers,
Brent

### Are these questions medium

Are these questions medium level or high level ?

### I'd say that this question is

I'd say that this question is approximately 600-level

### I was stuck between A and C,

I was stuck between A and C, then chose A because C changes the meaning of the sentence(?). How can one infer that this is indisputably FACT and especially when there's the word typically (i.e. it can't be fact): "Pet shops typically do not screen buyers as well as breeders do?"

I think A could is actually more accurate

### It really comes down to the

It really comes down to the question "Who/what explains why various animal welfare groups want the government to regulate pet shops?"

I don't think answer choice C changes the meaning of the sentence. It merely answers the question "Who/what explains why various animal welfare groups want the government to regulate pet shops?"

### Hi Brent,

Hi Brent,

why did we consider the 2nd clause as independent. if I read it alone I wouldn't know what fact are we discussing"not a complete thought". thanks in advance

### I think you might be agreeing

I think you might be agreeing with the explanation in the video :-)

You are correct to conclude that the second clause does, indeed, express a complete thought. This makes the clause independent.

If a clause expresses a complete thought, then the clause is independent.

### Hi Brent,

Hi Brent,
Could you explain the reasoning you used to eliminate choice(A) since you said that its unclear who/what did the explaining but doesn't the fact about breeders over owners does the explaining.

Also could you explain what you intended to say while telling about missing antecedents pronouns in response to explanation on "THIS FACT".

Regards.

Regards.

### Great question!

Great question!

Let's say that what you suggest is true. We still have two issues:

1) What is the subject that goes with EXPLAINING ?
That is, who/what is doing the explaining?

2) Is EXPLAINING the correct form of EXPLAIN?
That is, does its tense/form match the thing that's doing the explaining?
-------------------------------------

You asked "doesn't the fact about breeders over owners does the explaining?"

My answer to that question is "Yes, the FACT about breeders over owners is the thing that does the explaining."

The original sentence does not have any reference to that FACT.
Without the word FACT, it's possible that the person/thing doing the explaining is the pet shops, the buyers or the breeders.

When we insert THIS FACT into the sentence, it's clear that the first part of the sentence is what comprises THIS FACT.

Does that help?

Cheers,
Brent

### Hi Brent,

Hi Brent,

I could not properly understand the meaning of the first line 'Pet shops....breeders do'. The use of as well as confused me.

Would be great if you can explain the same.

Warm Regards,
Pritish

### GIVEN: Pet shops typically do

GIVEN: Pet shops typically do not screen buyers AS WELL AS breeders do.

In this sentence, AS WELL AS is used to compare the quality of buyer screening that pet shops and breeders perform.

So, an analogous sentence might read "Pet shops typically do not screen buyers AS ACCURATELY AS breeders do."

Does that help?

Cheers,
Brent

### Hi Brent,

Hi Brent,

Apart from the comma and semi colon, can you explain why C is preferred over D ?
Any other grammatical error that one could notice ?

### The main issue with D is

The main issue with D is having two independent clauses separated by merely a comma. That's certainly enough reason to eliminate D.

However, THIS on its own could be considered a little bit ambiguous, whereas THIS FACT removes all ambiguity.

### Hi Brent,

Hi Brent,

Could we also say "explaining/explains why" is redundant?

just a thought.

### Good idea, but we need WHY

Good idea, but we need WHY here.
Other constructions such as EXPLAINS HOW, EXPLAINS WHERE, EXPLAINS WHO are also acceptable

### Is this "This fact explains

Is this "This fact explains why various animal welfare groups want the government to regulate pet shops" considered an independent clause? I did not consider it independent since it raised the question "What fact?" Please can you explain?

### Good question.

Good question.

Yes, "This fact explains why various animal welfare groups want the government to regulate pet shops" is considered an independent clause.
The answer to that question (what fact?) appears in the first clause.

Here's a similar construction: "Joe is a great tennis player; he practices every day."
The answer to the question " who does HE refer to" appears in the first clause.

Does that help?

### Yes. Thanks Brent!

Yes. Thanks Brent!