The state has proposed new rules that would set minimum staffing level

Intend + to is the correct idiom hence B,D are out
ensure + that is the correct idiom hence C,E are out

hence A is the correct answer
hope this helps

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of the crucial part of this sentence is that the rules are intended to ensure that at least one nurse is assigned for every four patients put through triage in a hospital emergency room.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Pronouns + Verb Forms + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• Habitual actions are best conveyed through the simple present tense.
• The simple past tense is used to refer to actions that concluded in the past.
• "should" is used to convey a sense of desirability/necessity.

A: Correct. This answer choice avoids the pronoun errors seen in Options D and E, as it uses no pronouns. Further, Option A uses the phrase "patients put through triage in a hospital emergency room", conveying the intended meaning - that the patients are put through triage. Additionally, Option A correctly uses the simple present tense verb "is assigned" to refer to habitual action. Option A also correctly uses the past participle ("intended" in this case) to refer to an action that concluded in the past. Besides, Option A is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

B: This answer choice incorrectly uses the infinitive verb form ("to + base form of verb" - "to + be assigned") to refer to a habitual action; remember, habitual actions are best conveyed through the simple present tense. Further, Option B uses the needlessly wordy construction "with the intent of ensuring", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

C: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "every four patients in a hospital emergency room put through triage"; the construction of this phrase illogically implies that the hospital emergency room is put through triage; the intended meaning is that the patients are put through triage. Further, Option C incorrectly uses the present participle ("verb+ing" - "intending" in this sentence) to refer to an action that concluded in the past; remember, the simple past tense is used to refer to actions that concluded in the past.

D: This answer choice incorrectly refers to the noun "patients" with the pronoun "that"; remember, "that" cannot be used to refer to human beings. Further, Option D redundantly uses "should" alongside "ensuring"; remember, "should" is used to convey a sense of desirability/necessity. Additionally, Option D uses the needlessly wordy construction "with the intent of ensuring", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

E: This answer choice incorrectly refers to the plural noun "rules" with the singular pronoun "this". Further, Option E alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "every four patients in a hospital emergency room put through triage"; the construction of this phrase illogically implies that the hospital emergency room is put through triage; the intended meaning is that the patients are put through triage. Additionally, Option E uses the infinitive verb form ("to + base form of verb" - "to + be assigned") to refer to a habitual action; remember, habitual actions are best conveyed through the simple present tense.

Hence, A is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Simple Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

This question is based on Modifiers and Construction.

Option A is grammatically and logically accurate. It has an absolute modifier at the end that clarifies what the rules are intended for.

The construction of Option B is bulky. The option is wordy and is not very clear. So, Option B can be eliminated.

The verb ‘ensure’ must be followed by the pronoun ‘that’. However, the pronoun is missing in Option C. The option also contains the phrase “hospital emergency room put through triage”, which implies that a hospital room is put through triage. The meaning conveyed is illogical since it is the patients that are put through triage. So, Option C can also be eliminated.

Option D is also bulky and wordy. Furthermore, the relative pronoun ‘that’ seems to refer to the hospital room, conveying the meaning that a hospital rom is put through triage. So, Option D can be eliminated.

Option E contains an ambiguous pronoun ‘this’. The pronoun is intended to refer to ‘rules’, but the demonstrative pronoun ‘this’ is singular, whereas the noun ‘rules’ is plural. So, there would be disagreement of the pronoun and its antecedent. If the pronoun is meant to refer to the clause before it, there would be an error of construction, since a pronoun refers only to a single noun, not an entire clause. So, Option E can also be eliminated.

Therefore, A is the most appropriate option.

Jayanthi Kumar.

The state has proposed new rules that would set minimum staffing levels for nurses, rules intended to ensure that at least one nurse is assigned for every four patients put through triage in a hospital emergency room.
A. rules intended to ensure that at least one nurse is assigned for every four patients put through triage in a hospital emergency room
B. rules with the intent of ensuring one nurse at least to be assigned for every four patients to be put through triage in a hospital emergency room
C. rules intending to ensure at least one nurse is assigned for every four patients in a hospital emergency room put through triage
D. with the intent of ensuring that at least one nurse should be assigned for every four patients in a hospital emergency room that are put through triage
E. and this is intended to ensure one nurse at least to be assigned for every four patients put through triage in a hospital emergency room

Experts please explain why option D is wrong.

Below are my doubts:

1) Isn't prepositional phrase "with the intent of .... " correctly working as adverbial modifier modifying the action "proposed"?
2) Why can't modifier "that are put through triage" modify the whole noun phrase "four patients in a hospital emergency room" instead of modifying just "hospital emergency room" . I have seen many Official questions in which relative clause modifies the noun before the prepositional phrase.

1) It's unclear whether the prepositional modifier "with the intent of" modifies "proposed new rules" or "set staffing levels."
2) We should only put a modifier after the prepositional phrase if we need to. For instance, if I said "The jar of peanut butter that I bought is on the table," the modifier "that I bought" must follow "of peanut butter." We can't say "The jar that I bought of peanut butter is on the table." Here, the patients are put through triage in the emergency room, so we should put the modifiers in that order.

Also, watch out for the word "should." It is often used in redundant or problematic sentences. Here, we don't want to say "ensuring that one nurse should be assigned." It doesn't make sense to say that the rules ensure that one nurse SHOULD be assigned. We want to ensure that one nurse ACTUALLY IS assigned.

I am not able to understand why "rules intended" is preferred over "rules intending". Are both acceptable?

I understand that the option using rules intending can be discarded due to dangling modifier concept.

Hi mikemcgarry could you please provide some insight into choice E here? I went for D because of the coordinating conjunction "and".

Q2. I am also not sure if the usage of "one nurse at least" is incorrect?

Q3. What is the difference between intended to / intent of? Which of these is correct?

Thanks a lot!

1) Here's (E) again: "and this is intended to ensure one nurse at least to be assigned for every four patients put through triage in a hospital emergency room." "This" is a pronoun functioning as the subject of a clause. Typically if a pronoun is the subject of a clause, it will refer back to the subject of the previous clause. In this case, "this" seems to refer to "the state," but it doesn't make any sense to write that "the state is intended to ensure one nurse." Also, claiming that the rules intend "one nurse" is illogical. Rather, the rules intend "that one nurse be assigned."

2) In the OA, "at least one" is modifying "nurse." This makes sense, as the modifier is giving info about the number of nurses. Another way to use the phrase "at least" is as an adverb meaning "if nothing else."

For example, "I didn't make dinner for my children, but at least I remembered to take them out of the car." Here, "at least" is modifying the verb "remembered." In the phrase "one nurse at least to be assigned," it's unclear if "at least" is modifying the number of nurses, or if it's intended to mean "if nothing else" and modify "to be assigned." So I don't know if we can say that "one nurse at least" is definitively wrong, but its usage is at best ambiguous here, so "at least one" is clearly better.

3) "Intended" is used here as a past tense verb followed by an infinitive action. For example, "Christina intended to walk her dog at noon, but she became distracted, and her new Persian rug suffered the consequences." "Intent," on the other hand, is a noun, which can be used to mean more or less the same thing. "It was Christina's intent to walk her dog..."

However, "Intent + of + Verb-ing" seems strange to me. "He had every intention of mowing the lawn," seems fine but "he had every intent of mowing the lawn," does not. So given the choice between "intent + of + verb-ing" and "intended + infinitive verb," I'd prefer the latter. But it's perfectly reasonable to look for more concrete decision points.

I hope that helps!

This thread caught my eye again today, and I realized that I completely missed a question from October. So just in case it helps somebody...

Either "rules intended" or "rules intending" seems fine to me, and I think that there are more important issues.

(C) has a much more concrete problem: "The state has proposed new rules that would set minimum staffing levels for nurses, rules intending to ensure at least one nurse is assigned for every four patients in a hospital emergency room put through triage." In the portion in red, it seems that the hospital emergency room will be put through triage! It makes far more sense to put the patients through triage, as (A) makes clear.

The takeaway: beware of false decision points! If you see two constructions, and both seem acceptable, look for other differences that might lead you to a concrete error.

I hope that helps!

EducationAisle sir,

In option D, the "that" can refer to "four patients". As per the definition of "that", it should sense with the nearest grammatical eligible word. So "that" can refer to patients. There are other errors based on which we can eliminate option D. The usage of "should be" is wrong as pointed in the discussion above.

Can you throw some light on why "with the intent of ensuring" is wrong in option D?
Didn't understand the reasonings above.

Since "that" as a relative pronoun can only refer to non-persons, "who" would have been a more appropriate relative pronoun.


There is just a bit of an ambiguity here: is option D talking about "The state has proposed new rules...with the intent" or "...nurses...with the intent..".

EducationAisle sir,
Just to rephrase, the prepositional phrase "with the intent of ensuring" can modify rules as well as minimum staffing levels for nurses? Both can give intent.
Am I right?

Yeah..more specifically the proposal (of the state) could be with the intent or nurses could have the intent.

Basically there is a bit of an ambiguity here.

Dear experts,

I know there are other clear issues but I would like to know difference between "rules intended" and "rules intending". I cut (C) because "in a hospital emergency room put through triage" but have no confidence to choose (A) because I'm not sure whether "rules intended" is correct.

"Intending" means "planning or meaning to do something."

So, in (C), "rules intending to ensure at least one nurse is assigned" means "rules planning to ensure at least one nurse is assigned."

Since rules are not capable of planning something, that meaning is nonsensical.

In (A), "rules intended to ensure that at least one nurse is assigned" means "rules meant (by someone) to ensure that at least one nurse is assigned."

Since it makes sense that rules would be meant by someone to ensure something, the meaning conveyed by the (A) version makes sense.

The former version makes sense and the latter version is nonsense.

Maybe it will help to consider similar constructions with a different base word: written (grammatically analogous to intended), and writing (grammatically analogous to intending).

Consider the following:

The new airline-safety cards contain a simplified emergency protocol written to be easily understandable to passengers with only a marginal command of English. —> MAKES SENSE (the protocol was written... by some employee or contractor whose identity isn't important here)

The new airline-safety cards contain a simplified emergency protocol writing to be easily understandable to passengers with only a marginal command of English. —> DOESN'T MAKE SENSE (a protocol isn't writing anything!)


Do you understand why the first of these makes sense, whereas the second doesn't? If so, then by extension you'll also understand why "intended" works here whereas "intending" does not.

ExpertsGlobal5 KarishmaB

For option A, as per the explanation given :


What is the verb?
Is it - "is" or "is assigned". If "is assigned" isn't it passive?
Also, I am cognizant of the fact that simple present tense conveys habitual action, use of helping verb "is" make the tense no longer simple present tense, then how is this explanation (highlighted) correct?