Two oil companies agreed to merge

[chwera58]

1. In option B - something that will happen in future is discussed.
'would' is used if the hypothetical is in the past tense.

see usage #1 here:
post45300.html#p45300

the correct answer here is doing the same sort of thing.

another way to think about this: if this merger were announced in the present -- e.g., on tonight's news, "these two companies have just agreed to a merger..." -- then the sentence would say
that will control 15% ...

2. In option A - "For controlling <something>" (purpose of merging two companies)

right -- and this is another consideration against option (a).

as you've stated, the construction for VERBing implies an explicit purpose or goal of some action.
therefore, in this sentence, for controlling 15%... actually implies that the companies merged for the specific purpose of controlling this exact percentage of the market -- not a reasonable interpretation.

Hi, Ron, if you don't mind, can I get a clear yes/no answer to this question: Is "For V-ing" strucuture legitimate in expressing a purpose of certain action?

Thank you very much Ron.

[tim]

Yes, there are times when that construction is legitimate.

[thanghnvn]

[quote="yogeshpv"]The two oil companies agreed to merge their refining and marketing operations in the Midwest and the West, forming a new company for controlling nearly fifteen of the nation’s gasoline sales.

A. forming a new company for controlling
B. forming a new company that would control
C. which would form a new company that controlled
D. which formed a new company for controlling
E. which formed a new company that would control

Why is the answer B, but not A? Can you provide insight between A and B.

OA: B

this question is relevant to doing

there are 2 types of doing, one used to refer to general action and the other to specific action caused by a specific noun in the sentence.

in this question, "controling" is used to refer to a general action and so, choice A means

for someone to control

this meaning is not logical in the context of whole sentence.
A is gone.

there is other case, in which doing refer to a specific action

learning gmat, I make my thinking better.

learning here refer to an action cause by "I".

the context will let me now which kind of doing we are dealing with.

this point of grammar is not explained in general grammar books and in any other material . that is the reason why we "die" in this point while gmat like to test us on this point heavily.

do you agree with me?

[RonPurewal]

Sorry, I don't really understand what you are asking.

[eggpain24]

1. In option B - something that will happen in future is discussed.
'would' is used if the hypothetical is in the past tense.

see usage #1 here:
post45300.html#p45300

the correct answer here is doing the same sort of thing.

another way to think about this: if this merger were announced in the present -- e.g., on tonight's news, "these two companies have just agreed to a merger..." -- then the sentence would say
that will control 15% ...

2. In option A - "For controlling <something>" (purpose of merging two companies)

right -- and this is another consideration against option (a).

as you've stated, the construction for VERBing implies an explicit purpose or goal of some action.
therefore, in this sentence, for controlling 15%... actually implies that the companies merged for the specific purpose of controlling this exact percentage of the market -- not a reasonable interpretation.

as to the second point

My understanding is that
1. for controlling could potentially used（though less legitimate than“to”） to show purpose，but that's nonsense meaning

2. for controlling could also be used as "noun modifier", modifying "company", which states the function of the "company"

just like " I need a shoe for running"

but this modifier just don't make sense, either → you cannot have some mergers just for 15% sales.(that's weird)

please correct me if I am wrong, thank you!