One of Ronald Reagan’s first acts as President was to

[tigor]

One of Ronald Reagan’s first acts as President was to rescind President Carter’s directive that any chemical banned on medical grounds in the United States be prohibited from sale to other countries.
(A) that any chemical banned on medical grounds in the United States be prohibited from sale to other countries
(B) that any chemical be prohibited from sale to other countries that was banned on medical grounds in the United States
(C) prohibiting the sale to other countries of any chemical banned on medical grounds in the United States
(D) prohibiting that any chemical banned on medical grounds in the United States is sold to other countries
(E) that any chemical banned in the United States on medical grounds is prohibited from being sold to other countries

Source: GMAT Prep

I was confused between A and C. I like A because it uses subjunctive, but I have no reason to eliminate choice c.
Please help.

[Guest]

One of Ronald Reagan’s first acts as President was to rescind President Carter’s directive that any chemical banned on medical grounds in the United States be prohibited from sale to other countries.
(A) that any chemical banned on medical grounds in the United States be prohibited from sale to other countries
(B) that any chemical be prohibited from sale to other countries that was banned on medical grounds in the United States
(C) prohibiting the sale to other countries of any chemical banned on medical grounds in the United States
(D) prohibiting that any chemical banned on medical grounds in the United States is sold to other countries
(E) that any chemical banned in the United States on medical grounds is prohibited from being sold to other countries

Source: GMAT Prep

I was confused between A and C. I like A because it uses subjunctive, but I have no reason to eliminate choice c.
Please help.

A) - uses the correct idiom prohibhit X from Y.

[RonPurewal]

what's the oa?

i like choice c better for two reasons.

- 'directive that ... be prohibited' is more awkward than 'directive prohibiting ...', and may in fact be considered incorrect. (from what i've seen, the use of 'directive' is similar to that of 'law', and you can't say things like 'prohibition was a law that the sale of alcohol be prohibited'.)
- 'prohibited from sale': i'm pretty sure that's wrong. the correct use of the idiom in this case would be 'chemical companies were prohibited from selling chemicals...'
you could also say that the sale of such chemicals is prohibited.

[tigor]

oa is c. Thank you ron. I wish I was living in San Fran. I would definitely take the class then.

[RonPurewal]

oa is c. Thank you ron. I wish I was living in San Fran. I would definitely take the class then.

you're welcome.

i'm co-teaching an online class on tuesdays starting next month. you are of course cordially invited to join.

[guest]

I doubt that answer choice (C) may be interpreted as follows ... "One of Ronald Reagan’s first acts as President was to rescind President Carter’s directive" ... "prohibiting the sale to other countries of any chemical banned on medical grounds in the United States". Thus it may suggest that because Reagan rescinded Carter's directive, it resulted in "prohibiting the sale to other countries of any chemical banned on medical grounds in the United States".

For example,
Tom received the court order restricting his movements outside the city.
It may mean 1) The very action of "Tom receiving the court order" restricted his movements outside the city
2) Tom received the court order. The court order restricts his movements outside the city.

Please clarify.

[RonPurewal]

I doubt that answer choice (C) may be interpreted as follows ... "One of Ronald Reagan’s first acts as President was to rescind President Carter’s directive" ... "prohibiting the sale to other countries of any chemical banned on medical grounds in the United States". Thus it may suggest that because Reagan rescinded Carter's directive, it resulted in "prohibiting the sale to other countries of any chemical banned on medical grounds in the United States".

For example,
Tom received the court order restricting his movements outside the city.
It may mean 1) The very action of "Tom receiving the court order" restricted his movements outside the city
2) Tom received the court order. The court order restricts his movements outside the city.

Please clarify.

i see what you're saying, but no, there's no ambiguity. this issue is settled nicely and neatly by the presence/absence of a comma. if the comma is not there, the participial modifier must modify whatever noun directly precedes it. if the comma is there, then the participial modifier is taken to modify the preceding clause as a whole (or particularly the verb of that clause).
to wit:
tom received the court order [NO COMMA] restricting his movements outside the city --> the court order itself restricts tom's movements. we can infer that tom's movements are already restricted by the court order, regardless of whether he has received it.
tom received the court order, restricting his movements outside the city --> tom's movements were not restricted until he received the order.

by the way, the second of these sentences isn't that great: tom is the subject of that sentence, so the modifier implies that tom restricted his own movements by receiving the order. to convey the meaning more precisely, you'd say something like tom received the court order, thus activating or bringing into effect restrictions on...'

make sense?

[navdeep_bajwa]

Why E is wrong

[RonPurewal]

Why E is wrong

2 things

* if you have
a directive/order/command + that + noun + verb
then the verb must be in the COMMAND SUBJUNCTIVE.
so this would have to be
"...directive that any chemical banned in the United States on medical grounds be..."

* you don't use "X is prohibited from ..." unless X is a person.
the chemical is prohibited from being sold --> wrong
chemical companies are prohibited from selling the chemical --> correct

[ntaksatorn]

I doubt that answer choice (C) may be interpreted as follows ... "One of Ronald Reagan’s first acts as President was to rescind President Carter’s directive" ... "prohibiting the sale to other countries of any chemical banned on medical grounds in the United States". Thus it may suggest that because Reagan rescinded Carter's directive, it resulted in "prohibiting the sale to other countries of any chemical banned on medical grounds in the United States".

For example,
Tom received the court order restricting his movements outside the city.
It may mean 1) The very action of "Tom receiving the court order" restricted his movements outside the city
2) Tom received the court order. The court order restricts his movements outside the city.

Please clarify.

i see what you're saying, but no, there's no ambiguity. this issue is settled nicely and neatly by the presence/absence of a comma. if the comma is not there, the participial modifier must modify whatever noun directly precedes it. if the comma is there, then the participial modifier is taken to modify the preceding clause as a whole (or particularly the verb of that clause).
to wit:
tom received the court order [NO COMMA] restricting his movements outside the city --> the court order itself restricts tom's movements. we can infer that tom's movements are already restricted by the court order, regardless of whether he has received it.
tom received the court order, restricting his movements outside the city --> tom's movements were not restricted until he received the order.

by the way, the second of these sentences isn't that great: tom is the subject of that sentence, so the modifier implies that tom restricted his own movements by receiving the order. to convey the meaning more precisely, you'd say something like tom received the court order, thus activating or bringing into effect restrictions on...'

make sense?

Ron, this is a definitely a great note. Can you give one more CLEAR example?

[StaceyKoprince]

The court mailed the order restricting Tom's movements.

Meaning: Tom's movements are already restricted. The court merely mailed a copy of the order to Tom after the fact.

The court mailed the order, restricting Tom's movements.

Meaning: Tom's movements were not restricted until the order was mailed. Now that it has been mailed, Tom's movements are restricted.

[vinayak.stalwart]

Hi,
Today, I was reading an online news and came across this sentence. Would like to share it with you and also check if I have understood it correctly:

Last week, the Centre, in its affidavit, rejected Maharashtra's claim saying language can't be the only criteria for deciding state boundaries.

>> Maharashtra claims that language can't be the only criteria and Centre has rejected it.

If we put a comma after claim, the sentence would look like (I think this is the intended meaning):

Last week, the Centre, in its affidavit, rejected Maharashtra's claim, saying language can't be the only criteria for deciding state boundaries.

>> Here it implies that Centre, citing that language can't be the only criteria, has rejected Maharshtra's claim (ie Maharashtra claimed that language is the only criterion, but Centre rejected that claim )

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks,
VK

[mschwrtz]

Hey VK,

If I understand your note, you've got it exactly backwards.

To simplify, I'm going to toss out the modifier "in its affidavit," as well as some other nonessential stuff.

They rejected the claim saying language can't be the only criterion.
No comma here, so the -ing word modifies the noun immediately preceding it. That is, the claim says language can't be the only criterion.


They rejected the claim, saying language can't be the only criterion.
Comma preceding the -ing word here, so the -ing word modifies the entire clauses preceding the comma, or the verb in that clause. In other words, this sentence attributes the "saying" to the same subject as "rejected" the claim, the Centre.

[sahaaj]

Hi, i know this is an old post, but i just came across this question.

I'm confused why the command subjunctive is not used in this case?

[RonPurewal]

Hi, i know this is an old post, but i just came across this question.

I'm confused why the command subjunctive is not used in this case?

it can be used -- that's not the error.

perhaps the biggest problem in (a) is the misuse of "prohibit X from Y", which should only be used when X is a person and Y is a prohibited action.