When is use of 'for' objectionable? Why is it not here?

[divineacclivity]

That educators have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology can hardly be said that it is their fault : Alvin Toffler, one of the most prominent students of the future, did not even mention microcomputers in Future Shock, published in 1970


(A) That educators have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology can hardly be said that it is their fault to lower the underground water level and to dig trenches
(B)That educators have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology can hardly be said to be at fault
(C)It can hardly be said that it is the fault of educators who have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology
(D)It can hardly be said that educators are at fault for not anticipating the impact of microcomputer technology
(E)The fact that educators are at fault for not anticipating the impact of microcomputer technology can hardly be said.

OG is D
I know the question has been answered earlier on this forum but I just couldn't find an answer to my question. here it is:

I'm not able to understand why the use of "for" is correct here. Please help me understand this one.
Pls consider the following 2 sentences:
I picked up the pen to (/in order to) write a letter - CORRECT
A pen is for writing
I picked up the pen for writing a letter - INCORRECT
for - specifies the purpose of an object and "in order to" specifies purpose of an action.
So, here also, isn't the usage ".. for not anticipating .." incorrect? Please explain.
Thanks
~ Divine

[vivs.gupta]

Because use of for + verbing is just an avoid, not incorrect. If other answer choices are wrong, then there is no harm in choosing a answer choice with for + verbing.

[jlucero]

Vivs's response is correct, there are instances when for + verb-ing is acceptable. Two key things to remember: (1) "for" is a preposition and therefore cannot have a true verb in its prepositional phrase and (2) any modifier (including prepositional phrases) must refer to the right item. Consider your examples:

A pen is for writing ('for writing' tells us what a pen is used for)
I picked up the pen for writing a letter ('for writing a letter' is fine as a modifier, but it incorrectly modifies the word pen- I have five pens on my desk, but I picked up the one that I use for writing letters)

[divineacclivity]

Vivs's response is correct, there are instances when for + verb-ing is acceptable. Two key things to remember: (1) "for" is a preposition and therefore cannot have a true verb in its prepositional phrase and (2) any modifier (including prepositional phrases) must refer to the right item. Consider your examples:

A pen is for writing ('for writing' tells us what a pen is used for)
I picked up the pen for writing a letter ('for writing a letter' is fine as a modifier, but it incorrectly modifies the word pen- I have five pens on my desk, but I picked up the one that I use for writing letters)

Thanks. I have a follow up question & this is not to nitpick but just to have a clearer idea in my mind to be able to strike right answers on the test.

so, if "I picked up the pen for writing" is one of the options (very unlikely I know) and rest of the answers have pronoun reference errors, then we could pick this one over the others (n extreme cases ofcourse). Is that ok? Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

so, if "I picked up the pen for writing" is one of the options (very unlikely I know) and rest of the answers have pronoun reference errors, then we could pick this one over the others (n extreme cases ofcourse). Is that ok? Thank you.

not going to happen. in this case, you would need to see "i picked up the pen to write..."

here's another attempt at explanation:

* if you use "for VERBing" to explain the purpose of an action, that purpose should be (at least somewhat) indirect.

e.g.,
(nb: a "walking foot" is a component of a sewing machine)
i bought a new walking foot for working with leather.
--> indirect purpose. i.e., the purchase itself is not directly involved with leatherworking, although the two are indirectly (though rather closely) related.
i used the new walking foot to work with leather.
--> direct purpose.

the other legitimate uses of "for VERBing" that i've seen have mostly been idiomatically connected to particular meanings. moreover, essentially all of these constructions would work the same way with nouns substituted for the "VERBing" parts.
e.g.,
Clara was paid $600 for working 20 hours of overtime.
--> this one depends on idiomatic usage: you are paid for x.
note that this construction works identically if x is a noun: clara was paid $600 for her work.

hope that helps.

[pinkrose]

I'd like to ask: Is the sentence below grammatically correct if it stands alone?

"It is the fault of educators who have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology"

[RonPurewal]

I'd like to ask: Is the sentence below grammatically correct if it stands alone?

"It is the fault of educators who have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology"

if that sentence were to occur in some larger context, in which a previous noun gave meaning to "it", then, sure. if it's all by itself, then "it" is meaningless, so, no.