The state has proposed new rules that would set

[mindadze]

Dear Instructors,

I see one and the same problem in A,B,C and D.

The state has proposed new rules that would set minimum staffing levels for nurses, rules intended to ensure that at least one nurse is assigned for every four patients put through triage in a hospital emergency room.

The second part is an independent clause. Should not it be divided from the first clause only by (.) (;) or (a coordinating conjunction)?

Thanks for explanation.

[RonPurewal]

Dear Instructors,

I see one and the same problem in A,B,C and D.

The state has proposed new rules that would set minimum staffing levels for nurses, rules intended to ensure that at least one nurse is assigned for every four patients put through triage in a hospital emergency room.

The second part is an independent clause. Should not it be divided from the first clause only by (.) (;) or (a coordinating conjunction)?

Thanks for explanation.

--

first:
OFFICIALLY CORRECT ANSWERS ARE CORRECT!
do not question officially correct answers!
far too many students on this forum make the mistake of questioning the correct answers; please note that doing so is a complete waste of your time and effort. i.e., exactly 0% of the time that you spend posting "isn't this official answer wrong?" is productive, and exactly 100% of that time is wasted.

"is this correct?" is NEVER a productive question to ask about one of GMAC's correct answers -- the answer is always yes.
"is this wrong?" / "is this X type of error?" is NEVER a productive question to ask about one of GMAC's correct answers -- the answer is always no.

instead, the questions you should be asking about correct official answers, if you don't understand them, are:
"why is this correct?"
"how does this work?"
"what understanding am i lacking that i need to understand this choice?"

this is a small, but hugely significant, change to your way of thinking -- you will suddenly find it much easier to understand the format, style, and conventions of the official problems if you dispose of the idea that they might be wrong.

--

second:
did you read the thread?

this is not an independent sentence; it's a modifier:
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/pos ... tml#p39665
also read the post linked from that post.

[saintjingjing]

to me rules intending and rules intending seem correct

i'm not sure you meant to write the same thing twice.

"rules intending..." is incorrect, since the rules aren't intending to do anything. rules don't have intentions, although their authors do.
this is a passive type construction. the rules are intended to do x, y, and z, so you need "intended", not "intending".

[a participle without comma modifier the immediate noun(rules here )

usually, but there can sometimes be intervening words. see sentence correction #50 in the diagnostic test (front of the yellow o.g.) for an example of this sort of thing.

hi, ron, I focus on your explanation about rules intending / rules intended. since rules can not intend sth, rules just be intended. okay, I understand, but could you see this post
sc-a-new-york-city-ordinance-of-1897-t7988.html

in that post,the correct one : "A New York City ordinance of 1897 regulating the use of bicycles...."
it is odd, right? "A New York City ordinance of 1897 " is also a law(rule), but after this law, regulating ....,
since rules can not intending, well law(rule) can not regulating, may be "regualed" is much better?

[RonPurewal]

in that post,the correct one : "A New York City ordinance of 1897 regulating the use of bicycles...."
it is odd, right? "A New York City ordinance of 1897 " is also a law(rule), but after this law, regulating ....,
since rules can not intending, well law(rule) can not regulating, may be "regualed" is much better?

hmm?
rules may most certainly regulate things. in fact, that's exactly what a rule is, by definition -- something that regulates things.

"regulated" would be incorrect, as it would imply that the rules themselves are regulated by something or someone else.

[saintjingjing]

in that post,the correct one : "A New York City ordinance of 1897 regulating the use of bicycles...."
it is odd, right? "A New York City ordinance of 1897 " is also a law(rule), but after this law, regulating ....,
since rules can not intending, well law(rule) can not regulating, may be "regualed" is much better?

hmm?
rules may most certainly regulate things. in fact, that's exactly what a rule is, by definition -- something that regulates things.

"regulated" would be incorrect, as it would imply that the rules themselves are regulated by something or someone else.

yes, in the past I still keep such idea about "laws/ rules, ving... instead of ved.
but in this SC,look "The state has proposed new rules ... " , the correct one is intended not intending....
I think this correct answer reverse my past idea about" laws/ rules, ving "---> must correct( and ofcourse, ron ,you also point out that rules may most certainly regulate things. in fact, that's exactly what a rule is, by definition -- something that regulates things

[RonPurewal]

yes, in the past I still keep such idea about "laws/ rules, ving... instead of ved.
but in this SC,look "The state has proposed new rules ... " , the correct one is intended not intending....

it took me a while to figure out what "ved" and "ving" mean; please try not to use abbreviations like these. thanks.

i think i see the problem here -- i think you're trying to figure these things out without thinking about the meaning of the sentence. in other words, it appears that you think there are just grammar rules that you can memorize regarding these modifiers; sorry, but that's impossible.
you have to understand the intended meaning to figure out which of these modifiers should be used.

NOUN + verbING is an *active voice* modifier; it indicates that the NOUN is the person/thing that actually *does* the action indicated by the verb.
so, rules regulating ... is logical, because rules *do* this -- i.e., they regulate things.
rules intending ... is absurd -- rules don't have intentions of their own. (the people who make the rules have intentions; the rules don't have intentions.)

NOUN + verbED is a *passive voice* modifier; it indicates that the NOUN is the person/thing *to whom/which* the action is done.
so, rules regulated ... doesn't make sense, because the rules themselves regulate things. if you use an -ed modifier in this case, you get the strange idea that someone or something actually has to regulate the rules.
rules intended ... does make sense, because some person intends that the rules do certain things.

another example:
a person driving in a taxicab is the actual driver of the taxicab.
a person driven in a taxicab is a passenger. ("driven" is an irregular form, but it functions in the same way as an -ed modifier)

i hope this makes more sense now.

[saintjingjing]

yes, thanks Ron, I am ashamed to have to ask about modifers in my way.

[tim]

:)

[thanghnvn]

pls, help

I do not understand the use of "this " in the choice E. Pls, explain, "this" inhere is correct or not. Why "this" inhere is wrong ?

[RonPurewal]

pls, help

I do not understand the use of "this " in the choice E. Pls, explain, "this" inhere is correct or not. Why "this" inhere is wrong ?

"this" can't be used as a noun/pronoun.
in formal written english, the only acceptable use of "this" is as an adjective that specifics a noun:
a couple of decades ago most college football teams played a very defensive game, with the purpose of running down the clock, but this strategy has become obsolete in today's fast-paced, more offensively oriented game.

[thanghnvn]

"insure somebody to do" is not idiomatic

B is out

Am I correct?

[tim]

Yes, you would never "insure somebody to do" something..

[jp.jprasanna]

"With" can introduce an adverbial modifier. I don't see that as a problem here. However, D has two other problems.

First, as mentioned above, "that are put through triage" incorrectly modifies "emergency room."

Hi - I still dont see why D is wrong- I understand option A is superior but I still want to know why D is wrong.

1/ "that are put through triage" - here " that ARE" so the only possible referent for that is patients correct? How can "that are" modify "emergency room"
2/ So is there a problem with the placement of the modifier?

Second, "ensuring that at least one nurse should be assigned" is incorrect. If we are going to use "ensuring that," we should not follow it with "should." If we ensure that something happens, then it will definitely happen. "Should" implies that it *ought* to happen, and that is not the same thing.

In reviewing this problem, I would focus on the first point. The way that modifiers are moved around between the answer choices is very typical of the GMAT. In sentences with multiple modifiers, you need to make sure that everything is in exactly the right place!

3/ Ensure is not a bossy very right which can be ascertained from
the correct ans so subjunctive is not the problem here then why "should be" is wrong?

4/ D starts with "with" which is adverbial modifier right - so I can say - States with the intent of ensuring blah blah blah has proposed... { Pls correct me if im interpreting this wrongly }

5/ Could you please let me know how I can eliminate this answer choice.

Thanks in anticipation.

Cheers


The state has proposed new rules that would set minimum staffing levels for nurses, rules intended to ensure that at least one nurse is assigned for every four patients put through triage in a hospital emergency room.

A. rules intended to ensure that at least one nurse is assigned for every four patients put through triage in a hospital emergency room
B. rules with the intent of ensuring one nurse at least to be assigned for every four patients to be put through triage in a hospital emergency room
C. rules intending to ensure at least one nurse is assigned for every four patients in a hospital emergency room put through triage
D. with the intent of ensuring that at least one nurse should be assigned for every four patients in a hospital emergency room that are put through triage
E. and this is intended to ensure one nurse at least to be assigned for every four patients put through triage in a hospital emergency room

[RonPurewal]

hmm, it appears that there's some misinformation in the previous posts on this thread.

* in choice (d), there's not a problem with the "that" modifier.
such modifiers can be, and often are, placed at a certain distance from what they modify -- as long as the meaning is clear and the sentence can't be interpreted in any other reasonable way.
for a solid example showing that this modifier is not the problem, check out #50 in the DIAGNOSTIC verbal section (*not* #50 in the normal SC chapter) of og11, og12, or og13. (the diagnostic chapter is identical in all three editions.)

* "ensure" does not take the command subjunctive.

in general, the command subjunctive is used for three types of situations:
-- commands/demands (your contract stipulates that you be on time every day),
-- requests (i would like to ask that you be on time),
-- statements of importance (it is imperative that you be on time every day).

"ensure", which is not one of these, just uses normal indicative verbs. (to ensure that you are on time to the meeting, please allow extra time for traffic delays.)

--

regarding choice (d), there are basically 2 issues:

1/
the simultaneous use of "ensure" and "should" is redundant;

2/
the placement of "in a hospital emergency room" is sort of weird. at first glance it seems to indicate that the emergency room itself is put through triage. even upon rejecting this interpretation, it doesn't convey the idea that the patients are actually put through triage in the emergency room (= definitely the intended meaning in the original sentence).

[zhongshanlh]

sorry but having read all the posts in this thread, i still have a problem about option D.

in D, "with the intent of blah blah blah",we know that,in general, COMMA+ PREPOSITION should be an adverbial modifier and modifies the preceding clause.

questions:
1.in this PREP problem, in option D, does the rule mentioned above still apply here?

2.i know that COMMA verbING is also a adverbial modifier and modifies the preceding clause,moreover, the action of the verbING should apply to the subject of the preceding clause.
i wonder,in term of the COMMA PREPOSITION,such as WITH phrases, does the phrase apply to the subject of the preceding clause too?
and if so, then in this problem in option D,"with the intent of blah blah blah" means that the subject of the main clause--->the states are the real ones that are with the intention of blah blah blah??

Ron and experts,please make the questions clear.
and thank you very much.