According to some analysts, whatever its merits, the proposal to tax

Clearly proposal is to be enacted. Hence, C, D and E are out. b/w A and B, 'proposal of taxing' is awkward in B

Proposal ..., if enacted.. is correct
A is the best

E suggests that .. taxing.., if enacted.. thats wrong.
_________________

According to some analysts, whatever its merits, the proposal to tax away all capital gains on short-term investments would, if enacted, have a disastrous effect on Wall Street trading and employment.

(A) its merits, the proposal to tax
(B) its merits may be, the proposal of taxing
(C) its merits as a proposal, taxing
(D) the proposal’s merits, to tax
(E) the proposal’s merits are, taxing


A clear precedent to ‘have’ is needed. The disastrous effects would be of ‘the proposal’ and not its merits. Hence, we need an option that contains proposal.
D and E can be eliminated due to the usage of “proposal’s merits” rather than ‘proposal’.
C makes ‘taxing’ the subject and thus, should be eliminated.
B is unnecessarily wordy.
A is the best choice here.

Is proposal of taxing unidiomatic ?

proposal to is correct idiom ?

Please guide daagh sir

Also, what is your take on A vs B ?

Hi, Pls allow me to pitch in here. daagh can pls confirm whether am I following the correct line of reasoning

Proposal to- shows the intention i.e. the proposal intends to something
Also, According to some analysts has to modify proposal and hence the usage in C, D and E is wrong.

Rather I have my own small doubt here about the construction, request daagh to shed some light - is not "whatever its merits may be" the correct usage over "whatever its merits"

I think Agg is correct in saying 'to tax' is idiomatic while the proposal of taxing is unidiomatic. Proposal of taxing may mislead to mean, that it is the taxing's proposal. The second point is not critical. As long as the meaning is clear, the more concise version is to be preferred

If "simple past" then "simple past (fact/habit)" or
If "simple past" then "would-verb (uncertainty)"

The question falls in to the second category,

If "the proposal is enacted", then "the proposal would have a disastrous effect..."

So option A is correct

What is the function of "whatever its merits" phrase? How do I know that it should not have a verb?

D, and E change the subject from "proposal" to "merits", the focus is "The proposal... would have a disastrous effect..."

C is similar to D, and E in that the subject "taxing" is incorrect

B use "of taxing" is incorrect

A remains and is the most correct

@gmatninja@daagh The question mentions 'have' so it must have a plural antecedent.
The subject proposal is singular, so 'have' refers to which noun?

Mansimathur
The appositive phrase, enclosed in commas, presents information that is not essential to the author.
The appositive phrase is a noun phrase and it refers to the noun "the proposal".
It is not imperative for it to contain a verb, it can modify a noun very well without a verb. You can say it is a noun phrase modifying a noun, and noun phrases don't have to contain a verb, though there can be an action described by a gerund.

To tax vs For taxing, infinitives vs gerunds
To tax denotes intent

For Taxing denotes some 'action' of taxing by someone authorized to do so but the sentence here is about the "purpose" the intent of the law, hence an infinitive is warranted here.

The helping verb "would" changes the conjugation of the main verb. We could write "Tim has indigestion," or "Tim would have indigestion if he consumes 1500 deep-fried jalapeños."

This one is like the second example, "The proposal... would have."

I hope that clears things up!

POE
1. The main subject is the 'proposal'....if enacted. Eliminate C,D,E
2. Of taxing vs to tax - of taxing -unidiomatic: to tax- idiomatic.
Eliminate-B
3. Answer- A

Posted from my mobile device

zhanbo - how would go about eleminating ?

People are eliminating (c), (d) and (e) because they ask themselves the question : what is enacted ?

To me, both can be enacted
(i) Taxing (the act of taxing) capital gains -- can be enacted
(ii) The proposal -- can be enacted

Thus i could not eliminate (C), (d) and (e)

jabhatta2, here is how I ended up choosing (A). The last two contestants for me are (A) and (E).

(B) The correct idiom is "proposal to do something" instead of "proposal of doing something".
(C) "whatever its merits as a proposal" does not make sense: it means we can treat / regard some merits as a proposal, but merits and a proposal are not compatible.
(D) "to tax ...., if enacted": I feel that we can enact a proposal (or, to a lesser degree, taxing), but not "to tax". Also, check the discussion for (E).
(E) "to enact taxing" might work. After comparing (A) and (E) more carefully, I notice that
> In (A), "its" has clear antecedent. Nothing wrong with (A).
> In (E), however, definite article "the" in "the proposal" should be used to indicate that we are talking about a specific proposal. Typically, the first time a proposal is mentioned, we use indefinite article "a proposal"; thereafter "the proposal" can be used to refer to the previously-mentioned proposal. The problem with (E) (as well as with (D)) is that "the proposal" is used right away without introducing "a proposal" elsewhere first. While readers can figure out that "the proposal" likely means "taxing away all capital gains on short-term investments", it is not specifically put forward as "a proposal", thus making the use of "the proposal" suspicious.

Hi zhanbo - quick followup on this idiom

From a logical perspective - is there a reason for why "proposal of doing something" DOES NOT work ?

I dont want to memorize idioms as i dont believe the GMAT is a test of memory.

I see Daaghs response here as to the logical reason for why "proposal of doing something" DOES not work.

Just curious on your thoughts.


Also -- what about "idea" or "suggestion". Is "idea of driving" also wrong

Hi zhanbo - thank you for your analysis on (E) : I am not sure I understand what is making "the proposal" suspicious. Could you help clarify.

Are you saying that "The proposal" in (D) and in (E) (marked in red below in my diagram)
MAY NOT BE THE SAME
Proposal mentioned in the blue clause ?

Is that why "The proposal" is suspicious because the proposal in the blue is referring to ANOTHER proposal ?

I see your comments in the green text BUT it seems very formulaic - not sure if i can use the bit in the green as a take-away