The state has proposed new rules that would set

[shobuj40]

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

pls explain elaborately why not C why it is A.

[kylo]

misplaced modifier problem.

in B - "put through triage" is incorrectly modifying "hospital emergency room".


Thanks!

[shobuj40]

can any instructor say

what is the difference between :

rules intended

and

rules intending

[bear&bull]

to me rules intending and rules intending seem correct

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


Did I miss something ?

[RonPurewal]

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.

[tienvunguyen]

This sentence structure seems odd to me. What function in the sentence does the underlined part have? It does not modify nurses. It seems to modify 'the new rules' but is structured in a really odd way.

Is that sentence an equivalent to this?

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

[mahesh.s009]

I thought this is an example for appositives. If not please let me know.

[RonPurewal]

I thought this is an example for appositives. If not please let me know.

this is correct; the modifier here is an appositive modifier (a noun that describes the idea of the previous clause).

the rules for such modifiers are somewhat flexible, but are usually divided on the basis of whether the appositive noun is concrete or abstract.

two things.

1)
read this:
post35386.html#p35386

2)
check out problem #75 in the blue second edition OG verbal supplement (#79 if you have the purple first edition). this problem uses the same sort of abstract appositive.

[jinyunzhou]

I don't understand choice D.

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.

I know "that are put through triage" here is wrong, regardless of this, is "with the intent of ensuring that..." appropriate here? I'm always confused with the usage of " with + n. +doing", does this modifer " the state"?

[sandeep.19+man]

This sentence structure seems odd to me. What function in the sentence does the underlined part have? It does not modify nurses. It seems to modify 'the new rules' but is structured in a really odd way.

Is that sentence an equivalent to this?

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

Tutors, Could you please give your thoughts on the above.

Thank you

[RonPurewal]

posters --

this problem has been posted in violation of the forum rules; it has been posted with only two of the five answer choices.

please post the problem with all five of the answer choices, per the forum rules; once this has been done, we will proceed to answer the questions that have been posted here.

thanks!

[prepgmat09]

posters --

this problem has been posted in violation of the forum rules; it has been posted with only two of the five answer choices.

please post the problem with all five of the answer choices, per the forum rules; once this has been done, we will proceed to answer the questions that have been posted here.

thanks!

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

[tim]

Tienvu, "ensuring" is modifying the proposal. In order to figure this out, you need to ask yourself who or what is ensuring that nurses are assigned. Since either the proposing of the rules or the rules themselves seem to fit the bill, ask yourself if one of those interpretations could actually work. "New rules" won’t work, because "new rules" is a noun and "ensuring" does not touch that noun. Fortunately "has proposed" will work..

Jinyun, no "with" is not correct. I believe "with" needs to modify a noun. If anyone can provide a counterexample, please let me know..

[ankitp]

I picked D, and don't get why it's wrong. Is something else wrong with the sentence?

With is a prepositional modifier, it can be a noun or adverbial modifier. Reading another post ( many-daring-vacationers-who-participate-in-guided-t3770.html)

From Emily Sledge: " As for the "with eyes and noses peeking out" prepositional phrase, it depends on the context. Prepositional phrases are flexible, as they can be noun or adverbial modifiers (and sometimes an odd blend of the two, in my opinion). "

[dmitryknowsbest]

"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."

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!