The state has proposed new rules that would set

[ZHUOC614]

hi Ron,

I understand the biggest problem of choice B is "rules" should not be followed by "with the intention".

But I think the placement of "at least" rather wired and the "to be" after "patients" wired, too. But I am not sure and not know the exact reason. Would you please shed me some light on the usage of "at least" and "to do" that is after a noun.

Thanks a lot!!

[RonPurewal]

"Wired"... I assume you mean "weird".

"At least" should come before the number it describes (exactly as it would in a math problem). In the correct answer, it does. In choice B, it doesn't.

"Patients to be put through triage" would be patients who have not yet gone through triage. This is a different meaning, but it's also reasonable. So, not a decision point.
("Bills to be paid this month" are bills that I have NOT yet paid, but must pay by the end of the month. "Bills paid this month" are bills I've already paid sometime since the beginning of the month.)

[ZHUOC614]

Thanks Ron so much! I now can understand it !

[tim]

Glad to hear it!

[RonPurewal]

If you happen to know what "triage" means, then the version with "to be" makes less sense. (Triage is the very first thing that happens when a patient is taken into the ER, so patients "to be put through triage" are the ones who are still sitting in the waiting room.)

On the other hand, SC problems aren't going to depend on vocabulary. If a SC sentence contains a "hard" word, there will be (a) ways to solve the problem without using it, or (b) sufficient context to determine what it means.

[AllenY389]

Hi, Ron,
sorry to bump this thread again.
I think in choice D, there is nothing wrong with the placement of "that clause" modifier
But, "that" can't refer to "patients" in choice D. "patients" are "people". People can only use "who/whom" to connect a subordiante clause.
I have read the #50 question in diagnostic test in OG.
In this problem, "that" refers to "a standardized way”, so we're fine.
Am I right？If I miss something, please corret!
Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

you lost me with the terminology (i don't know/remember what a "subordinate clause" is)

what i'm getting here, from what you wrote, is "we can't use that for humans".
if that's what you are saying, then, yes, that's a valid observation (and a good reason to eliminate that choice).

but, i think you're trying to say something beyond that. (if you were only trying to say "that ≠ humans", then all this stuff about clauses would be irrelevant.)

so... what are you trying to say, beyond "that ≠ humans"? can you give examples, and avoid using unnecessary terms?
thanks.

[gbyhats]

Hi Dear Manhattan Instructors ;)

I have a question regarding #1 of what Ron had said:

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

If I delete "that" in #1, is it still acceptable in GMAT?

--

It seems GMAT sometimes find itself comfortable dropping "that" in this sort of sentence structure. I will show an example below:

...announces + (that) + [a complete sentence]

-->[Official GMAT question]
TWE Inc. announced it was closing stores.
Link: http://tinyurl.com/noma8kb

--

So is "...ensure that..." falls into this category?

-->[description of Manhattan GRE prep book]
Manhattan Prep hires fewer than 1 in 10 qualified applicants for its teaching positions, ensuring every instructor has years of experience and a 99th percentile score.

http://tinyurl.com/l4pky96

Disclaimer: This is *not* an advertisement. ;)

[RonPurewal]

that usage ("ensure", without "that", before a complete sentence) may be allowed.

in actual praxis, this sort of thing is used mostly with words that mean, in some way or another, "say" (= the whole spectrum of words for conveying an idea: say, announce, imply, etc.).

[RonPurewal]

also, "that" won't be omitted unless, stylistically speaking, there's a good reason.
if you look through the (correct) official examples in which "that" is omitted, you'll find that each omission serves to prevent some sort of awkward wording, usually an undesirable repetition (e.g., "x that y that z").

you'll NEVER need such a thing to solve a SC problem, by the way. style is never tested on this exam.

so, with regard to this sort of thing, your job starts and ends with the following two things:
• know that this kind of construction exists.
• don't eliminate it.

[gbyhats]

Hi Ron, thank you for your fast replies!

that usage ("ensure", without "that", before a complete sentence) may be allowed.

Gotcha!

so, with regard to this sort of thing, your job starts and ends with the following two things:
• know that this kind of construction exists.
• don't eliminate it.

Haha, gotcha and gotcha

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.

[CrystalSpringston]

to me rules intending and rules intending seem correct

"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".


Hi Ron,
intend to do and be intended to do both mean "plan to do "
based on the explanation by you, the only difference between them is who is the subject.
If subject is human, then "intend to do", otherwise, be intended to do.
Am I right?

Thank you!

[RonPurewal]

basically correct... but, just to be clear, two things.

1/
this is a VERY VERY BIG difference.

one of these things means "WANT to achieve some purpose". so, we must be talking about an entity that can actually intend (= WANT) to do something.
this is why you need a human being (or body consisting of humans, such as a government) in that sense.

perhaps this is already clear to you...
...BUT you wrote "the only difference is..." (rather than just "the difference is...").
this wording seems to suggest that you think of the difference as small or subtle. (if a native speaker said or wrote "the only difference" rather than just "the difference", this would be his/her implication.)

[RonPurewal]

2/
these things are grammatically different, too.

consider:

I ordered some things from Company X.
--> here, 'ordered' is a VERB.
(it's an active verb.)
if you have 'ordering' as a modifier, it corresponds to this usage.

Everything ordered from Company X over the weekend will be shipped on Monday.
--> here, 'ordered' is a MODIFIER.
this modifier corresponds to a passive verb (these things were ordered from the company).


do you understand these?
if so, then...
...it should be quite clear that the VERB 'ordered' can only have humans (or human organizations) as its subject,
...you can just transfer the same understanding onto 'intended'.