To protect English manufacturers of woolen goods both agains

[JonathanSchneider]

: )

[mohan.padmini]

Hi Ron,

Please clarify my doubt.

(B) In order to protect English manufacturers of woolen goods against both American and Irish competition, England passed the Woolens Act of 1698
(C) In order to protect English manufacturers of woolen goods against American, as well as against Irish, competition, the Woolens Act of 1698 was passed by England

In B won't the 'which' [in the not underlined portion] be refering to 1968? Or will it be refering to the entire Woolens Act of 1698.

Is the problem with C that it is passive?

Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

In B won't the 'which' [in the not underlined portion] be refering to 1968?

you can tell that it doesn't, since this is an officially correct answer.
if it referred to 1968, this answer choice would be incorrect.

Or will it be refering to the entire Woolens Act of 1698.

yes.

"Woolens Act of 1698" is a proper noun. you should always think of proper nouns as one word, regardless of the number of separate words that they contain.

for instance, "the united states of america" is also a proper noun.
if you see "... the united states of america, which ...", then you know that the pronoun "which" must refer to that entire proper noun.

Is the problem with C that it is passive?

Thanks!

no, since THE PASSIVE VOICE IS NOT AN ERROR.

the passive voice is just another verb form; it is neither intrinsically correct nor intrinsically incorrect. like other verb forms and tenses, it is correct when it is situationally and grammatically appropriate, and incorrect otherwise.

actually, the big problem with choice (c) is exactly the issue to which you paid so much attention in (a): the use of the pronoun "which".
in choice (c), "which" erroneously refers to "england".

[adiagr]

Hi guys,

regarding Both, there is another thread where parallelism concerning both has been explained really nicely by Ron and others.


methane-which-has-long-been-counted-among-t2361.html

Aditya

[RonPurewal]

Hi guys,

regarding Both, there is another thread where parallelism concerning both has been explained really nicely by Ron and others.


methane-which-has-long-been-counted-among-t2361.html

Aditya

thanks for linking

[gmatalongthewatchtower]

Hi Ron,

So if I change "for protecting" to "(in order) to protect" in D, the only difference between B and my D is "against both American and Irish competition" vs. "against American, as well as Irish, competition".
Is there any difference between "as well as" and "both" in this context? (I understand that "both" can form a compound noun but "as well as" doesn't)
Thanks in advance.

no. the death stroke for that answer choice is the 'for protecting' part; that simply isn't idiomatic.
both versions of the latter half make sense - 'against both american and irish competition' is just as reasonable as 'against american, as well as irish, ...'

ron,
You have discussed this problem in your study hall. You said that "for protecting doesn't work here." It works in certain instances. Can you please explain a bit?

Thanks for your help

[RonPurewal]

ron,
You have discussed this problem in your study hall. You said that "for protecting doesn't work here." It works in certain instances. Can you please explain a bit?

there are other contexts in which that construction is idiomatic, e.g., intuition is essential for solving problems on this exam.

fortunately, this is the sort of thing whose importance on the gmat has diminished considerably.

[divineacclivity]

correct: the distinction between 'to protect' and 'in order to protect' is irrelevant, as both forms are ok.
the decision is, as you've pointed out, predicated on parallelism.

Hi Ron, could you please resolve 2 of my questions?

1. I dropped C thinking that the correction version should have been "both American and Irish competitionS" because we always use "both <plural>" whereas "as well as" is for singular e.g.
Both the cars look alike.
Ray, as well as Joe, goes to school daily.

Is that not right?

2. So, I took option E instead even though "for the protection" did sound inferior to "in order to protect" but singular/plural problem sounded utterly wrong.
"For the protection.." tells the purpose of the object e.g.
A pen is for writing (purpose of the object)
He picked up the pen to write a letter (purpose of the action)
Is that wrong?

[tim]

i'm not sure i understand what "rule" you are using on C, but i can tell you for certain that you eliminated the answer choice for the wrong reasons..

E of course is wrong because it is not a complete sentence. Your examples are a little suspect though: "a pen is for writing" does not seem correct; typically on the GMAT i would expect to see "a pen is used for writing" instead. can you provide any examples where your construction would be considered acceptable?

[divineacclivity]

I'll rephrase my question:

1. In option B: shouldn't "both American and Irish competition" be "both American and Irish competitionS" instead?

2. In option E: why should "for the protection" be "to protect"? aren't both alright? please explain why or why not.

thanks in advance.

[jlucero]

I'll rephrase my question:

1. In option B: shouldn't "both American and Irish competition" be "both American and Irish competitionS" instead?

2. In option E: why should "for the protection" be "to protect"? aren't both alright? please explain why or why not.

thanks in advance.

1. No, competitions is a synonym for games. Competition is a singular thing that comes from both the Americans and Irish. "Competition from American and Irish is...."

2. Personally, I think that's the 4th or 5th issue I would have with (E).

Edit: I think this is more of an idiomatic issue than anything else. I'd just chalk this up to something you strike for "sounding off"

The big difference is that to is used with a verb and for is used with a noun.

[divineacclivity]

Ok, thank you very much for this information. I'd keep that in mind.
I'm changing your example sentence a little (pls ignore the meaning of the sentence for a while :) ):
For protecting my bird from dogs, I carry a machete.
Is this ("for preotecting.." in the sentence above) kind of usage correct? Please tell me why or why not.
thanks in advance.

[jlucero]

Ok, thank you very much for this information. I'd keep that in mind.
I'm changing your example sentence a little (pls ignore the meaning of the sentence for a while :) ):
For protecting my bird from dogs, I carry a machete.
Is this ("for preotecting.." in the sentence above) kind of usage correct? Please tell me why or why not.
thanks in advance.

I went back and rethought my original example. I think this is more idiomatic than a change in meaning, but you need to be sure you use to/for properly. So your example:

For protecting(verb) my bird from dogs, I carry a machete. (wrong)

should be

To protect(verb) my bird from dogs, I carry a machete. (preferred)

or

For the protection(noun) of my bird from dogs, I carry a machete. (ok, but wordy & awkward)

[YingC357]

Hi Ron~I've been a super big fan of you for almost 2 years. It's my first time to post

according to your post "infinitive modifiers don't modify nouns at all, actually; they aren't adjective-style modifiers."

But in the thread for Prep 68
for-the-best-extraction-of-the-flavor-of-t1312-15.html
(B) " The principal error here is the misplaced modifier: 'to best extract their flavor' mistakenly refers to saffron threads, leading to the absurd conclusion that they are extracting their own flavor. "

I'm so confused....If "infinitive modifiers don't modify nouns at all, actually; they aren't adjective-style modifiers." what's the problem with prep 68(B)? How can saffron threads extract their own flavor?

please give me some hints!! thank you

For the best extraction of the flavor of saffron threads, it should be soaked in liquid after being pounded with a mortar and pestle.
(A) For the best extraction of the flavor of saffron threads, it should be soaked in liquid after being pounded
(B) To best extract their flavor, saffron threads should be soaked in liquid after pounding
(C) The best way to extract the flavor from saffron threads is soaking them in liquid after being pounded
(D) The best way to extract the flavor from saffron threads is to soak them in liquid after pounding them
(E) The flavor of saffron threads can best be extracted by soaking it in liquid after pounding it

DOESN'T THE MODIFIER ( AS IN CHOICES A,B,& D) 'TO PROTECT ENGLISH MANUFACTURER'S OF WOOLEN GOODS BOTH AGAINST AMERICAN & IRISH COMPETITION' INCORRECTLY MODIFY ENGLAND? SHOULDN'T IT BE MODIFYING 'THE WOOLENS ACT OF 1698'? PLEASE ANYONE..RON?

infinitive modifiers don't modify nouns at all, actually; they aren't adjective-style modifiers.

when an infinitive is used as a modifier, as is done here, it modifies the entire clause to which it's attached. reading the sentence in this light, you should be able to make perfect sense of the modifier.

[RonPurewal]

the concept of "modifying an action" always takes into account the subject/agent of the action -- just not as directly as when the noun is actually modified.

this idea is explained in detail here:
for-members-of-the-seventeenth-century-t16247-15.html