Preposition + Noun + Participle

[Guest]

Can one of the MGMAT staff please advise why the Preposition + Noun + Participle is always grammatically incorrect?

example:
With child-care included

Thanks!!

[RonPurewal]

hi -

from what source did you gather that this construction is always wrong? and in what context(s)?

thanks

[Guest]

Ron,

I got this source from something called "Sahil's note" page one. (I wanted to attach this but looks like this forum does not allow to attach)

It states the following

4)
Any Sentence construction with "˜preposition + noun + participle’
e.g. With child-care facilities included (with - preposition, child-care - noun, included - participle)
Infinitives like "˜to include’, "˜to implement’ etc. are wrong on GMAT. Instead use, "˜implementing’, "˜including’ (Which are known as Gerunds) etc.

A Gerund is a noun formed from a verb i.e. Overcoming the GMAT is a great achievement. infinitives are usually formed to retain the integrity of the idiom which is used or to keep a sentence in parallel

Then there is 1 problem that explains this logic

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Perkins Gilman, a late nineteenth-century feminist, called for urban apartment houses including child-care facilities and clustered suburban houses including communal eating and social facilities.
A) including child-care facilities and clustered suburban houses including communal eating and social facilities
B) that included child-care facilities, and for clustered suburban houses to include communal eating and social facilities
C) with child-care facilities included and for clustered suburban houses to include communal eating and social facilities
D) that included child-care facilities and for clustered suburban houses with communal eating and social facilities
E) to include child-care facilities and for clustered suburban houses with communal eating and social facilities included
________________________________________


First, we can eliminate all the answer choices that use with communal eating and social facilities included or any other structure that follows this pattern:

preposition + noun + participle

This pattern is almost always wrong on the GMAT, and is certainly wrong in this question. This eliminates C) and E).

A) is ambiguous--is clustered suburban houses parallel with child-carfacilities or with urban apartment houses? We need to repeat for to be sure that clustered suburban houses is parallel with urban apartment houses.

Now we're left with B) and D).

Now, the only difference between B and D is the infinitive to include, which GMAT considers unidiomatic.

That leaves us with D).

[Guest]

Correction: In Sahil's note,

" 4) Any Sentence construction with "˜preposition + noun + participle’ "

was labled under NOT TO USE (Always wrong) section.

[Guest]

ron,

so can we follow this rule ?

[RonPurewal]

ron,

so can we follow this rule ?

i'd be hesitant to posit this as an actual rule. i think that the more precise rule is like this:
if the actual object of the preposition is the verb, not the noun, then you can't use this construction.

here's what i mean:
you can't say "my parents heard about me failing the test". the reason isn't simply because it's prep+pron+verb, though, but because of semantics: they didn't hear about me - they heard about the failing.
the proper way to phrase this sort of thing, which is still really awkward-looking, is "my parents heard about my failing the test".

--

in general, though, i wouldn't rule out this construction outright. for instance, i don't think the gmat would have a problem with a construction like
coats and ties are the dress code for guests eating dinner in the main hall.
i can't think of an alternative way to phrase this that isn't hopelessly awkward.

--

by the way, the "correct" answer to that problem, (d), has a verb tense problem: "that included" isn't appropriate. since that's the simple past tense, concurrent with "called for", the implication is that those amenities already existed. the correct tensed constructions would be "...that would include".

[tankobe]

in above problem:
Charlotte Perkins Gilman, a late nineteenth-century feminist, called for urban apartment houses including child-care facilities and clustered suburban houses including communal eating and social facilities.
B) called for urban apartment houses that included child-care facilities, and for clustered suburban houses to include communal eating and social facilities
C) called for urban apartment houses with child-care facilities included and for clustered suburban houses to include communal eating and social facilities
E) called for urban apartment houses to include child-care facilities and for clustered suburban houses with communal eating and social facilities included

Ron, BCE are wrong answers. but i don't they wrong for the reason that V--call for-- sth can not parallel to V--call for--sth to do or that call/argue for sb to do is unidiomatic, or both?
------------------------------
i have seen a example in OG:
...argue for female to have political rights and for changes in the married female's property laws.
[*some words have been changed for the reason of copyright.]
the right option is: argue for political rights for female and for changes in the married female's property laws.

[gurvindersingh2004]

ron,

so can we follow this rule ?

--

by the way, the "correct" answer to that problem, (d), has a verb tense problem: "that included" isn't appropriate. since that's the simple past tense, concurrent with "called for", the implication is that those amenities already existed. the correct tensed constructions would be "...that would include".

Hi Ron you said
the correct tensed constructions would be "...that would include"
Isnt would supposed to be used for hypothetical situations.
Whats the difference between "that will include " and "that would include "

[RonPurewal]

ron,
Isnt would supposed to be used for hypothetical situations.
Whats the difference between "that will include " and "that would include "

read here:
post45300.html#p45300

[josh_nsit]

ron,

so can we follow this rule ?

i'd be hesitant to posit this as an actual rule. i think that the more precise rule is like this:
if the actual object of the preposition is the verb, not the noun, then you can't use this construction.

here's what i mean:
you can't say "my parents heard about me failing the test". the reason isn't simply because it's prep+pron+verb, though, but because of semantics: they didn't hear about me - they heard about the failing.
the proper way to phrase this sort of thing, which is still really awkward-looking, is "my parents heard about my failing the test".

--

in general, though, i wouldn't rule out this construction outright. for instance, i don't think the gmat would have a problem with a construction like
coats and ties are the dress code for guests eating dinner in the main hall.
i can't think of an alternative way to phrase this that isn't hopelessly awkward.

--

by the way, the "correct" answer to that problem, (d), has a verb tense problem: "that included" isn't appropriate. since that's the simple past tense, concurrent with "called for", the implication is that those amenities already existed. the correct tensed constructions would be "...that would include".

From your logic, things are entering into periphery of possesive pronouns. Can you please clarify, what will be right on these sentences?

My parents heard about josh_nsit's failing the test.
My parents heard about josh_nsit failing the test.

My parents heard josh_nsit failing the test. --> Also, this looks somehow better to me and kind of making me to think positively of the wrongness of "proposition+noun+participle". I am not sure if I am oversimplifying this.

--> @MGMAT Admins/Management: I am not getting notifications whenever some one posts on my post inspite of checking the checkbox. Just want to know if there is some problem in the way I have set up my profile settings or there is some bug to be fixed by MGMAT. Checking all the posts where you expect a reply is really tedious and cumbersome. Will appreciate if this can be taken up with MGMAT.

[tim]

Ron actually answered this question in the post you quoted. Go back and take another look. He just used pronouns instead of your userid..

Sorry to hear about your problems with the notification; you'll need to contact MGMAT technical support for help with that, as they do not monitor the forums..