Two oil companies agreed to merge

[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

source: GMAT Prep

[igordudchenko]

Sorry for off-topic, but when looking for an explanation of this question, I found the text from which the question has originated:

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/19/busin ... ining.html

The Shell Oil Company and Texaco Inc. announced yesterday that they had agreed to merge their refining and marketing operations in the Midwest and the West, forming a new company that would control nearly 15 percent of the nation's gasoline sales.

[RonPurewal]

heh, nice find.

[pushkalk]

Hey Ron,
Is B also a case of Hypothetical subjunctive ? (would)

[RonPurewal]

Hey Ron,
Is B also a case of Hypothetical subjunctive ? (would)

no.
most importantly, you shouldn't worry about terminology like this. (i don't know this terminology; to understand your question, i had to go to google and look this term up.)

from what i can tell, "hypothetical subjunctive" seems to refer to things like If I were rich...
in such a situation, the verb would follow "if". "would" does not serve this function.

as with most other grammatical constructions, this is a situation in which you would be best advised to get away from terminology and into specific, canonical examples as soon as you can. i.e., take a look at some websites on the hypothetical subjunctive and remember a few example sentences; then evaluate future instances by comparing them to those memorized examples. once you've gotten the hang of the way the construction works, the use of terminology will probably just make the concept more difficult to grasp.

[thanghnvn]

In many question in OG books, "to do" is said to be correct and " for doing " is said to be incorrect. GMAT RULES THAT.

"to do" vs "for doing" is never discussed in general grammar books and that is why we are learning gmat grammar not general grammar and study of general grammar is useless.

of course, gmat grammar must be based on general grammar and if we, the non native lack some points in general grammar we have to study them. but be careful , do not study hard general grammar because hard general grammar is not tested on gmat.

some prep company offer some SC problem based on hard grammar points in general grammar. I think it is not good.

[RonPurewal]

In many question in OG books, "to do" is said to be correct and " for doing " is said to be incorrect. GMAT RULES THAT.

well, "for doing" is not something that is flat-out incorrect; there are contexts in which it could be just fine.
perhaps most simply, if you had the choice of choosing between "to do" and "for doing" in parallel to some other construction "for VERBing", then you would definitely need the latter.

of course, gmat grammar must be based on general grammar and if we, the non native lack some points in general grammar we have to study them. but be careful , do not study hard general grammar because hard general grammar is not tested on gmat.

this is a good attitude to have. it is true that most points in "general grammar" books are not tested on this exam.

[thanghnvn]

"for doing" is not alway wrong. "for doing" is wrong if it is used to show purposes

How do I do with "for doing" when I see "for doing" next time on gmat tests.

pls, help.

[RonPurewal]

"for doing" is not alway wrong. "for doing" is wrong if it is used to show purposes

How do I do with "for doing" when I see "for doing" next time on gmat tests.

pls, help.

see my comment directly above; probably the most common instance of this decision would be in the case of parallelism with another "for VERBing" form.

in general, you will not have to worry as much anymore about the purely idiomatic versions of constructions like these. see here:
http://www.manhattangmat.com/blog/index ... -the-gmac/

[vivs.gupta]

[code][/code]Hi .. Can anyone suggest why correct answer is B? Why not A?

[jlucero]

We are making a company that will make a million dollars.
We are making a company for the fun of it.

"that" is a relative pronoun that modifies company. The company is going to do something.

"for" has more leeway, but in this case is modifying the verb "are making". Why are we making a company? For the fun of it.

This isn't a perfect analogy for the problem, but the key thing is that the word "that" is VERY restrictive and gives a VERY clear meaning for the sentence. The word "for" is a lot more ambiguous, could (arguably) modify "forming", and just doesn't sound as clear as the word "that".

[vivs.gupta]

We are making a company that will make a million dollars.
We are making a company for the fun of it.

"that" is a relative pronoun that modifies company. The company is going to do something.

"for" has more leeway, but in this case is modifying the verb "are making". Why are we making a company? For the fun of it.

This isn't a perfect analogy for the problem, but the key thing is that the word "that" is VERY restrictive and gives a VERY clear meaning for the sentence. The word "for" is a lot more ambiguous, could (arguably) modify "forming", and just doesn't sound as clear as the word "that".

In this question, it seems that option b changes the meaning.
In option 'a', I feel that 'for controlling' signifies that controlling is the main objective for forming company

In option 'b' , company that would control shows that controlling is one of the adv or benefits of the company.

[s_ram86]

I have chosen A over B because of the below reasons:

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

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

Usage of "FOR + VerbING": If "VerbING" is the *goal* or *Purpose* of the plan, but it’s not the actual mechanics of the plan.

As 'B' is the official answer, I just want to know what is that i am missing here.

[divineacclivity]

I have chosen A over B because of the below reasons:

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

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

Usage of "FOR + VerbING": If "VerbING" is the *goal* or *Purpose* of the plan, but it’s not the actual mechanics of the plan.

As 'B' is the official answer, I just want to know what is that i am missing here.

Sure I had the EXACT same thing in my mind & I chose A too. Ron, please help us understand this one here. Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

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.