Thirteen states from all regions of the country

[John.D.]

Thirteen states from all regions of the country announced a plan to impose new controls on pollution from truck and bus engines in that they will jointly adopt emission limits that would be far stricter than the federal rules.

(A) to impose new controls on pollution from truck and bus engines in that they will jointly adopt
(B) to impose new controls on truck and bus engines' pollution by the joint adoption of
(C) to impose new controls on pollution from truck and bus engines by jointly adopting
(D) for imposing new controls on pollution from truck and bus engines, and jointly adopting
(E) for imposing new controls on truck and bus engine pollution in the joint adoption of

OA: C

[editor: this transcription was originally posted incorrectly; it's been corrected now.]

I eliminated BDE quickly, but really got confused while facing the choice between A and C.
I thought they have differnt meanings so I went for A. Do "in that they will jointly adopt" in A and "by jointly adopting" in C have the same meaning?
The "they" in A might be obscure, but I got a sentence, which I thought was where this question come from, from the New York Times:

Thirteen states from all regions of the country will try to impose new national controls on pollution from truck and bus engines on Monday, when they announce a plan to jointly adopt emission limits that would be far stricter than the federal rules.

There was a "they" there. Was it a bad usage that lead to obscure indication?


Thanx

[Pathik]

C - to impose ... and adopting is not ||

I am stuck between A and D.

In D, two things impose and adoption are not independent, instead restrictions are imposed by adopting.
Also I am not sure about idiom " plans for imposing"?
So my choice is A.

Pathik

[John.D.]

Thank you Pathik, your reasoning is really helpful.

I'm sorry, but there are typos in choice C. I recheck the options, and highlight the changed part of C.
(A) to impose new controls on pollution from truck and bus engines in that they will jointly adopt
(B) to impose new controls on truck and bus engines' pollution by the joint adoption of
(C) to impose new controls on pollution from truck and bus engines by jointly adopting
(D) for imposing new controls on pollution from truck and bus engines, and jointly adopting
(E) for imposing new controls on truck and bus engine pollution in the joint adoption of

With the right version of C, what's your opinion?
I got a delima between A and C. A has a "they" that might be obscured. But I thought C changed the meaning a little bit. Are "by jointly adopting" and "in that they will jointly adopt" mean the same thing here?

[RonPurewal]

Thank you Pathik, your reasoning is really helpful.

I'm sorry, but there are typos in choice C. I recheck the options, and highlight the changed part of C.
(A) to impose new controls on pollution from truck and bus engines in that they will jointly adopt
(B) to impose new controls on truck and bus engines' pollution by the joint adoption of
(C) to impose new controls on pollution from truck and bus engines by jointly adopting
(D) for imposing new controls on pollution from truck and bus engines, and jointly adopting
(E) for imposing new controls on truck and bus engine pollution in the joint adoption of

With the right version of C, what's your opinion?
I got a delima between A and C. A has a "they" that might be obscured. But I thought C changed the meaning a little bit. Are "by jointly adopting" and "in that they will jointly adopt" mean the same thing here?

c is better.

the easiest reason to grab onto: 'they' is ambiguous in choice a (it could potentially refer to the engines, although that is of course logically absurd)

'by' vs. 'in that':
'by' is used when you describe the method used to accomplish something - exactly what is done in this sentence.
'in that' is used to limit a general statement.
for instance: my brother and i are similar in that we both like to read.
the function of 'in that' here is to say, 'hey reader, this is the only way in which i'm asserting that we are similar.'
that's not the purpose of the sentence in this problem.

as far as your question about meaning: context makes it clear that 'in that' is incorrect - the sentence is explaining how the states are going to accomplish the stated goal, not making a limiting statement - so it's ok to pick a different construction that encapsulates the idea better.

[John.D.]

Thank you, Ron! Great explaination! You just dispelled my puzzle.

[morningdew123]

Hey Ron...

which is better "to impose" or "for imposing"?
Does "to impose" not give a feeling as if the purpose of announcement was imposing the law. I, however, feel that the purpose of announcement might just be to simply give information...

Plz Help...

[RonPurewal]

Hey Ron...

which is better "to impose" or "for imposing"?
Does "to impose" not give a feeling as if the purpose of announcement was imposing the law. I, however, feel that the purpose of announcement might just be to simply give information...

Plz Help...

those modifiers aren't attached to the announcement; they're attached to "a plan".

both of them are idiomatically legitimate; they just mean different things.
a plan TO DO X means that people now have the intention of doing X, whereas before they did not.
a plan FOR DOING X means a plan for how to actually execute this action; usually, this construction implies that the intention was already there, but that the plan of execution is new.

[namnam123]

pls, help, why B is wrong,

[lijingli401]

[deleted -- extraneous material]

[thanghnvn]

I rewrite the problem so that we can read easily

Thirteen states from all regions of the country announced a plan// to impose new controls on pollution from truck and bus engines in that they will jointly adopt //eission limits that would be far stricter than the federal rules.
A to impose new controls on pollution from truck and bus engines in that they will jointly adopt
B to impose new controls on truck and bus engines' pollution by the joint adoption of
C to impose new controls on pollution from truck and bus engines by jointly adopting
D for imposing new ontrols on pollusion from truck and bus engines, and jointly adopting
E for imposing new controls on truck and bus engine pollution in the joint adoption of

pls, help , why B is wrong?

[RonPurewal]

pls, help , why B is wrong?

"the joint adoption..." doesn't sufficiently indicate who is going to adopt the new regulations.
in general, ACTION NOUNS (adoption, destruction, etc.) don't imply that the subject of the sentence is performing the action; they usually refer to the general notion of that action.
by contrast, -ING forms do usually imply that the subject of the sentence is the actor.

here are two simpler sentences to illustrate:
i want to learn about adopting dogs --> implies that i actually want to adopt dogs myself.
i want to learn about the adoption of dogs --> i want to learn about dog adoption in general, but there is no implication that i actually want to adopt any canines into my own home.

[thanghnvn]

It is very clear that in some cases, "for doing" can not be replaced with "to do" as in the following case.

1. Rabindranath won Nobel Prize for writing Gitanjali. Correct

2. Rabindranath won Nobel Prize to write Gitanjali. Incorrect.

My question is that in some case, "to do" can be replaced with " for doing" if the paralellism requires the replacement. The question in this post is an example of this replacement. And we can say that
"to do is used to show a purpose" is not a hard and fast rule

we can not immediately eliminate a choice when we see this choice uses "for doing" to show a purpose

Ron, experts, pls, confirm my thinking.

[RonPurewal]

My question is that in some case, "to do" can be replaced with " for doing" if the paralellism requires the replacement. The question in this post is an example of this replacement.

there is no parallelism in the example you've given here.

we can not immediately eliminate a choice when we see this choice uses "for doing" to show a purpose

your example sentence doesn't show a purpose. (clearly, an author did not win a nobel prize with the express intention that it would help him write a book.)

[vivekkapoor73]

Quote:
My question is that in some case, "to do" can be replaced with " for doing" if the paralellism requires the replacement. The question in this post is an example of this replacement.


there is no parallelism in the example you've given here.

Quote:
we can not immediately eliminate a choice when we see this choice uses "for doing" to show a purpose


your example sentence doesn't show a purpose. (clearly, an author did not win a nobel prize with the express intention that it would help him write a book.)


WITH REFERENCE TO ABOVE DISCUSSION, what is right i.e for writing or to write...
As I learnt(If I am wrong pls correct it) to verb should come when subject directly shows involvement in that action

for verbing comes when there is some ultimate goal/some result is expected through the verb(action)

thanks

[divineacclivity]

[deleted -- extraneous material]