Archaeologists in Ireland .....

[sudaif]

Archaeologists in Ireland believe that a recently discovered chalice, which dates from the eighth century, was probably buried to keep from being stolen by invaders.

(A) to keep from
(B) to keep it from
(C) to avoid
(D) in order that it would avoid
(E) in order to keep from

OA B

My question is: Why is answer choice A wrong??

[pradeepkaushal9518]

here it is required to refer chalice.

[tim]

Ask yourself who buried the chalice and why. They buried it "to keep it from being stolen", not "to keep from being stolen". The second example sounds like they buried the chalice because they didn't want themselves to be stolen..

[thanghnvn]

what we learn from this sentence is that

"to do " is used to show intention which possiblly is not from the subject.

is my thinking correct ?

[tim]

most likely not. you've got a very short description of a "rule" here that appears to cover a wide variety of really complex situations. Ron and i have cautioned you MANY times in this forum to avoid reducing your understanding to simplistic rules. it's much more important here to UNDERSTAND what the subject is and what is being done and by whom..

[thanghnvn]

Archaeologists in Ireland believe that a recently discovered chalice, which dates from the eighth century, was probably buried to keep from being stolen by invaders.

(A) to keep from
(B) to keep it from
(C) to avoid
(D) in order that it would avoid
(E) in order to keep from

OA B

My question is: Why is answer choice A wrong??

I want to discuss another point.

"to do" can be used to show the intention of the subject

I learn gmat to take mba

"to do" can be used to show the intention of not subject.

this thing is burried to keep it from being stolen.

"this thing" is not agent of "to keep"
above sentence is what we learn from gmat og questions.
is my thinking correct?

[RonPurewal]

"to do" can be used to show the intention of the subject

I learn gmat to take mba

when you are dealing with an active construction -- in which the agent of the action is actually written in the sentence -- this kind of construction should, ideally, show the subject's intention.

"to do" can be used to show the intention of not subject.

this thing is burried to keep it from being stolen.

in general, i would restrict this usage to passive constructions (such as the one in this sentence), because the entire point of such constructions is to omit the actual agent of the verb.
in other words, this kind of usage shouldn't be extended to active constructions.

e.g.
the highway was extended 10 miles farther south, to allow commuters from the southern suburbs to travel downtown more quickly
--> this is a passive construction. "to allow..." is clearly not the intention of the highway itself -- in context, it's the intention of whoever planned the highway extension -- but, in a passive construction, this kind of usage is ok.

the planning commission voted to extend the highway 10 miles farther south, to allow commuters from the southern suburbs to travel downtown more quickly
--> this is an active construction. the modifier implies that "to allow..." was actually the intention of the planning commission; if that's not the case, this sentence is not ok.

[HarendraS120]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for such a good explanation. I still have a doubt. Can we not use to + verb + objective pronoun for active voice?

Example- I went to his home to persuade him for MBA.

Here "to persuade" is followed by objective pronoun however the sentence is in active form.

When it would it be incorrect to use object pronoun after to+ verb in active sentence.

[HanxiaoW973]

hi Ron, thanks for your explanation.

Firstly, in my opinion, in the 'S+O+V to do' structure, the subject of the intention is always the S in the sentence, right? or we have to deal it with the actual meaning to find out whether S or V.....

And here's my steps to solve the questions with intentions, please correct me if i'm wrong.

if the sentence is active, then the 'to do' means the intention of the subject.
eg: Ron buried this chalice to keep it from being stolen.

if the sentence is passive, then we first reconstruct it to active, then find out the subject, still, the intention is for the subject.

eg: The chalice is buried to (keep it from/ keep from).-------> someone buried this chalice to (keep it from(yes)/ keep from(no))------>The chalice is buried to keep it from

Are these steps reasonable?
Thanks so much.

[RonPurewal]

hi Ron, thanks for your explanation.

Firstly, in my opinion, in the 'S+O+V to do' structure, the subject of the intention is always the S in the sentence, right?

^^ not if it's passive (see 2 posts above yours)

And here's my steps to solve the questions with intentions, please correct me if i'm wrong.

if the sentence is active, then the 'to do' means the intention of the subject.
eg: Ron buried this chalice to keep it from being stolen.

if the sentence is passive, then we first reconstruct it to active, then find out the subject, still, the intention is for the subject.

eg: The chalice is buried to (keep it from/ keep from).-------> someone buried this chalice to (keep it from(yes)/ keep from(no))------>The chalice is buried to keep it from

Are these steps reasonable?
Thanks so much.

^^ you have the right idea here, although there's no reason why you should waste your time "transforming" passive sentences. if "to + verb" correctly expresses the intention of the ACTION—as in the example with "the highway was extended..."—then the sentence is fine.

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for such a good explanation. I still have a doubt. Can we not use to + verb + objective pronoun for active voice?

of course you can. why would you think you can't?