Rejecting the apprenticeship model of training social worker

[RonPurewal]

honestly, i spend a long time to figure the above point and honestly, I can do this question in the test room.

^^ If you can do the question in the testing room, that's certainly good enough!

[gauravtyagigmat]

In option B when have a comma before and
Generally we use ", and" to connect two main clauses
while part after ", and" is not a main clause

"that students could
be offered a broad range of courses dealing with social issues" is a subordinate clause

Please verify am i correct

[RonPurewal]

In option B when have a comma before and
Generally we use ", and" to connect two main clauses
while part after ", and" is not a main clause

"that students could
be offered a broad range of courses dealing with social issues" is a subordinate clause

Please verify am i correct

I don't know the term "subordinate clause", so I can't help you there. But there are many instances in which "comma + and" sections off things that aren't whole clauses (e.g., OG13 #13 and #31).

[thanghnvn]

Rejecting the apprenticeship model of training social workers in philanthropic agencies, twentieth-century reformer Edith Abbott was convinced of social work education belonging in
the university so that students could be offered a broad range of courses dealing with social issues.

(A) of social work education belonging in the university so that

(B) that social work education should be in the university, and that
(C) about the importance of social work education belonging in the university while
(D) that social work education belonged in the university, where
(E) of the necessity of social work education being in the university and

Answer：D

why？could u explain the reason？i am confused.i can not see points.

thanks in advance.

I find a way to see whether "and" is correct or not
if we see "and" we can change the order in which two entities connected by "and" because "and " must grammatically connect 2 dependent entities.

chang the order in B.

convinced that student could be offered a broad range... and that social worker should be in the university.

the clause "student could be...." is not logically connected with "rejecting..." at the begining of the sentence. Wrong.

it is true that gmat sc play the game of logic and that in the test room, it is hard to analyse the meaing error. I can do this question now, but I do not know I am calm enough to do so in the test room

[RonPurewal]

I find a way to see whether "and" is correct or not
if we see "and" we can change the order in which two entities connected by "and" because "and " must grammatically connect 2 dependent entities.

This is a clever idea, but it won't always work.
For instance, there are several adverbs that can follow "and" to indicate a cause-effect relationship (e.g., and thus, and so, and consequently, etc.) You couldn't perform this reversal on something like that.

In general, though, any "trick" (like this one) should be only temporary. You should eventually move past the stage of using tricks, to a point where you can just understand how stuff works and make decisions directly.

[rustom.hakimiyan]

Hi Instructors & Students

Can we eliminate A, C or E based on other issues besides idiom?

Thanks

yeah, you can also eliminate all 3 of those choices for the reason explained in this thread:
post26678.html#p26678

Hi Ron,

I read the attached thread but still have a nagging concern:

In A and C, "belonging" modifies "Social Work Education" since it's a verb-ing modifier without a comma. That creates ambiguity, correct? Meaning, it can be read as:

1) Edith Abbott was convinced of Social Work Education(SWE) and that SWE belongs to a university.

or

2) Edith Abbott was convinced of "SWE which belongs to a uni".

Is this the reason why A and C are out, in addition to the idiom error? I'm having a hard time seeing a clear path to ambiguity here -- to me, they mean the same sort of thing.

What am I missing here?

Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

You made the distinction here:

1) Edith Abbott was convinced of Social Work Education(SWE) and that SWE belongs to a university.

The whole point is that the particular construction of this sentence DOES imply the purple thing (which is nonsense), but DOESN'T imply the green thing (which is actually the intended meaning).
To imply the green thing, you'd write it exactly the way you wrote it here (i.e., with "that...").

"Convinced of SWE" just doesn't mean anything. "Convinced of ___" only works if ____ represents some idea, notion, etc. (...really convinced of these ideas)

[Lakshminarayan]

Hi Ron I have a small doubt regarding answer choice B

Is the usage of "SHOULD" in answer choice B incorrect ?

we can't use "should" in subjunctive construction.

e.g. 1: Edith Abbott was convinced that social work education be in the university, where students could be offered a broad range of courses dealing with social issues.

eg 2 : Edith Abbott was convinced that social work education should be in the university, where students could be offered a broad range of courses dealing with social issues.

1 is correct
2 is incorrect

I know that answer choice B distorts the meaning because it now creates to separate events, which are meant to be interrelated.

I want to know whether we can eliminate B because of the usage of "should"

[RonPurewal]

no, it's not that kind of construction (your #1).
you can figure this out by yourself: if this were that kind of construction, then "belonged" would be wrong too, and so the correct answer would be wrong!
...oops. the correct answer isn't wrong. so it's not that type of construction.

[RonPurewal]

there's nothing wrong with "should". (you have correctly identified the actual problem with that choice.)

[RonPurewal]

more on your #1:
the sentences that DO use this construction all deal with things that are not currently true, either ...
1/ because they are actually false at present ("I propose that boys be admitted to School X, which currently enrolls only girls")
... or ...
2/ because they haven't had the chance to happen yet ("The timeline of the event mandates that volunteers be on site at 5:00am tomorrow"; "You should store your food in an airtight container, lest it be detected and eaten by a bear while you sleep").

if we're talking about the way things are, then we NEVER use that kind of construction.

if you are convinced that _____ is true, then you are convinced that ____ IS true right now. So "is true" (not "convinced that ____ be true").

[Lakshminarayan]

okay since the verb "CONVINCED" is in the past tense here so we cannot use the subjunctive construction. subjunctive construction only makes sense when the events take place in the future.

Did I get it right Ron ?

[RonPurewal]

okay since the verb "CONVINCED" is in the past tense here so we cannot use the subjunctive construction. subjunctive construction only makes sense when the events take place in the future.

Did I get it right Ron ?

no, these things can be in the past. the point is that at the time of the sentence--regardless of when that might be--xxxxx is (or was, or will be) not true, or not yet true.

Although Smith had demanded that twenty employees be fired, only three were actually let go.

note that "be" doesn't have a tense at all--it's the same in any timeframe--so it's even more important than usual to ascertain tense/timeframe from the other verb(s) in the sentence.

[RonPurewal]

with most verbs, either you use that construction or you don't.
e.g., "convinced" ALWAYS refers to something that someone thinks (or thought, or will think) is actually a fact, so it will NEVER take that sort of construction.

on the other hand, there are some verbs that may or may not take that construction, because they have more than one possible meaning.

e.g.,
Smith proposed that evolution occurs through sudden, sporadic changes, rather than gradually.
--> this is smith's hypothesis ("proposed" = "stated a hypothesis"). he thinks this is how evolution actually happens, so "occurs".

Smith proposed that evolution occur primarily through sudden, sporadic changes, rather than gradually.
--> this would be a bit weird... smith is talking to God, or to some other deity/entity that can control how the world works, and he is basically asking for evolution to work this way ("proposed" = "put forth a plan").

[RonPurewal]

or some simpler examples:

• The doctor suggested that Susan go to sleep early.

• This cell phone bill, which shows no usage at all after 9pm, suggests that Susan goes to bed early.