The state has proposed new rules that would set

[RonPurewal]

Ron,

Can we eliminate options B) and C ) on the basis that ensure/ensuring should be followed by that since we need to refer to the idea of "atleast one nurse is assigned for every four patients put through triage ..." and not just the noun nurse.

Thanks

that reasoning works here, but it's not an absolute rule. (for an example that would violate your expectations here, google for a GMAT prep problem involving the words "squirrel" and "chestnut".)

[Suapplle]

Hi,Ron,I want to certify something
In choice D,"comma+with" modify "the state",it means that the state has the intent,so there is no problem with "comma+with"
While in choice B, "no comma+with" modify the "rules",this means that the rules have the intent,so it is wrong.
Is this understanding right?please clarify,thanks!

[RonPurewal]

Hi,Ron,I want to certify something
In choice D,"comma+with" modify "the state",it means that the state has the intent,so there is no problem with "comma+with"
While in choice B, "no comma+with" modify the "rules",this means that the rules have the intent,so it is wrong.
Is this understanding right?please clarify,thanks!

Correct, except for that the modifier in D has to describe the entire action that comes before, not just "the state".
That modifier describes the reason why "the state has proposed new rules...", so that's sensible.

E.g.,
The school installed new safety kits in all of its chemistry labs, with the intent of preventing a greater variety of possible incidents.
--> This makes sense.
The school installed new safety kits in all of its chemistry labs, with a new principal and several new athletic facilities.
--> Even if the school actually has a new principal and several new athletic facilities, this sentence is still nonsense, because that modifier has nothing to do with the decision to install safety kits in the labs.

[Suapplle]

Hi,Ron,I want to certify something
In choice D,"comma+with" modify "the state",it means that the state has the intent,so there is no problem with "comma+with"
While in choice B, "no comma+with" modify the "rules",this means that the rules have the intent,so it is wrong.
Is this understanding right?please clarify,thanks!

Correct, except for that the modifier in D has to describe the entire action that comes before, not just "the state".
That modifier describes the reason why "the state has proposed new rules...", so that's sensible.

E.g.,
The school installed new safety kits in all of its chemistry labs, with the intent of preventing a greater variety of possible incidents.
--> This makes sense.
The school installed new safety kits in all of its chemistry labs, with a new principal and several new athletic facilities.
--> Even if the school actually has a new principal and several new athletic facilities, this sentence is still nonsense, because that modifier has nothing to do with the decision to install safety kits in the labs.

Got it,thank you very much！^_^

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[Haibara]

Ron, sb=somebody, sth=something

ensure sb that (clause)
ensure that (clause)
ensure sb sth

Above three phrases are idiomatic, right? However "ensure sb to do sth" or "ensure sth to be done " is unidiomatic and thus incorrect?

Can I eliminate B for the use "ensuring one nurse at least to be assigned..."?

Please comment, thanks a lot.

[RonPurewal]

Ron, sb=somebody, sth=something

Polite request:
Instead of writing "sb", please write "(person)", or something like that.

I appreciate the explanation, but "sb" still creates notations that are too dense for me to understand easily. (Same with things like "s+v+o").
I.e., even now that I know what "sb" means, I still have to stare at these formulas for 20-30 seconds each before I understand them.

ensure sb that (clause)
No.
If you mean "telling someone that, yes, really, (clause)", then the word you want is assure, not ensure.

ensure sb sth
(again, please see my request above"”it took me about 45 seconds to understand this notation well enough to generate an example)
No.
If you mean "telling someone that, yes, really, this NOUN is guaranteed", then the word you want is assure, not ensure.

Others below.

[RonPurewal]

ensure that (clause)

This is a thing.

Above three phrases are idiomatic, right?

Nope. 1 out of 3. See above.

However "ensure sb to do sth" or "ensure sth to be done " is unidiomatic and thus incorrect?

The first is not a thing, although you can say "ensure that someone will do something". (This verison conforms to your second formula"”the only one of the three that's idiomatic.)

The second is redundant.

[RonPurewal]

You can only use "ensure" in two ways:
1/ "ensure that (sentence)""”as you wrote above
2/ "ensure NOUN"

In #2, the noun cannot be any physical thing/person/animal/etc. It must represent some abstraction, such as a feeling, event, etc.
E.g.,
Fertility clinics cannot ensure the birth of a baby. (correct)
*Fertility clinics cannot ensure a baby. (incorrect)

[RonPurewal]

Can I eliminate B for the use "ensuring one nurse at least to be assigned..."?

Yes, you can eliminate.

"Ensuring the assignment of at least one nurse...", though a bit weird, would be correct.

[Haibara]

I almost missed your replies in this thread.
Ron, thanks for clear explanation.

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[FanPurewal]

Here's the complete problem

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

i think the placements of *at least* of giant red things above can stand for different meanings of the sentences.

in A: at least one nurse is assigned...--> more than one nurse
in B: ensuring one nurse at least to be assigned...--> the nurse not only should be assigned for something， but also should do something else. (e.g., arrange the patients diets)

instructors, am i right?

and would you please tell me the grammar errors in the choice B?
(besides the un-idiom *ensure*)

thanks in advance!

[FanPurewal]

jp, if prep phrase + comma comes BEFORE a clause, then it should modify the whole clause.
if it comes after, then it could modify the whole clause, but it could also just modify the last noun. in that case, context is king.

hi ron
i think *with* is an exception here, because the structure
*,+ with...* modifies the entire clause before it, right?

and can you give me some examples about the things you said above? i can not understand from the conception and my brain can memorize the examples easily and efficiently.

thank you in advance!

[RonPurewal]

hi ron
i think *with* is an exception here, because the structure
*,+ with...* modifies the entire clause before it, right?

Could go either way, depending on context. Not an exception.

and can you give me some examples about the things you said above? i can not understand from the conception and my brain can memorize the examples easily and efficiently.

thank you in advance!

In 1994, I graduated from high school. —> "In 1994" describes the entire following sentence.
Others work like that, too.