Most states impose limitations on the authority of the legislature to

Here's a quick rundown on A-C:

A) There's only one objective here ("to protect"). We're protecting two things--taxpayers and the credit of the state--but that still constitutes one objective. Additionally, you're not likely to see a clunky construction like "with their objectives being" in a correct answer.

B) "The objectives of which" is a noun modifier, so it should touch the noun it's meant to modify. There can be exceptions to this rule ("The King of Spain, who visited me" clearly modifies "King" and not "Spain"), but the modifier can't jump over two prepositional phrases to modify "limitations." Even if it could, one could argue that limitations can't have objectives. Only the people or groups implementing them can! (As a side note, "the protecting of" is also terrible usage.)

C) The GMAT loves to throw us off by repeating a previous noun. This is meant to provide clarity--we're talking about those limitations, and not any of the nouns that have appeared since--but this kind of repetition scares away people who aren't used to seeing it. That's just what the GMAT wants: to use language in a way that those with less experience will find unfamiliar and wrong! That's how they tell the top scorers from the rest.

Here's another good example of what I'm talking about in C: https://gmatclub.com/forum/proponents-o ... 81789.html
_________________

Will vote for C

A. to borrow money, with their objectives being to protect. - Pronoun "their" is ambiguous - can refer to States or limitations
B. to borrow money, the objectives of which are the protecting of - of which ??
C. to borrow money, limitations intended to protect. - Correct - limitations intended to protect x & y
D. for borrowing money, of which the objective is protecting. - for borrowing money - idiom error
E. for borrowing money, limitations with the intent of protecting. - for borrowing money - idiom error

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 this sentence is that most impose limitations on the authority of the legislature to borrow money, and these limitations are intended to protect taxpayers and the credit of the state government.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Modifiers + Idioms + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• "authority + to" is the correct, idiomatic construction.
• In the “phrase + comma + noun” and “noun + comma + phrase” constructions, the phrase must correctly modify the noun; this is one of the most frequently tested concepts on GMAT sentence correction.
• The infinitive verb form ("to + base form of verb") is preferred over the present participle ("verb+ing").

A: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "their objectives being"; the use of the plural noun "objectives" incorrectly implies that the action of protecting taxpayers and the credit of the state government are multiple objectives of the limitations; the intended meaning is that the action of protecting taxpayers and the credit of the state government is the singular objective of the limitations. Further, Option A uses the passive voice construction "with their objectives being", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

B: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "their objectives being"; the use of the plural noun "objectives" incorrectly implies that the action of protecting taxpayers and the credit of the state government are multiple objectives of the limitations; the intended meaning is that the action of protecting taxpayers and the credit of the state government is the singular objective of the limitations. Moreover, Option B incorrectly modifies "the authority of the legislature to borrow money" with "the objectives of which are...", incorrectly implying that the authority of the legislature to borrow money is intended to protect taxpayers and the credit of the state government; the intended meaning is that the limitations on the authority of the legislature to borrow money are intended to protect taxpayers and the credit of the state government; remember, in the “phrase + comma + noun” and “noun + comma + phrase” constructions, the phrase must correctly modify the noun. Further, Option B uses the passive and needlessly indirect phrase "the objectives of which are the protecting of", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

C: Correct. This answer choice avoids the meaning-related errors seen in Options A, B, and D, correctly modifying "limitations on the authority of the legislature to borrow money" with the appositive "limitations intended to protect"; by using an appositive and omitting the noun "objectives", this modification conveys the intended meaning - that the singular objective of the limitations on the authority of the legislature to borrow money is to protect taxpayers and the credit of the state government. Further, Option C correctly uses the idiomatic construction "authority + to". Additionally, Option C uses the infinitive verb form ("to + base form of verb" - "to + protect" in this sentence) to refer to the purpose of the action "intended". Besides, Option C is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

D: This answer choice incorrectly modifies "the authority of the legislature to borrow money" with "of which the objective is...", incorrectly implying that the authority of the legislature to borrow money is intended to protect taxpayers and the credit of the state government; the intended meaning is that the limitations on the authority of the legislature to borrow money are intended to protect taxpayers and the credit of the state government; remember, in the “phrase + comma + noun” and “noun + comma + phrase” constructions, the phrase must correctly modify the noun. Further, Option D incorrectly uses the unidiomatic phrase "authority + for"; remember, "authority + to" is the correct, idiomatic construction. Additionally, Option D uses the present participle ("verb+ing" - "protecting" in this case) construction to refer to the purpose of the action "the objective is"; remember, for referring to the purpose/intent of an action, the infinitive verb form ("to + base form of verb") is preferred over the present participle ("verb+ing"). Besides, Option D uses the passive construction "of which the objective is protecting", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

E: This answer choice incorrectly uses the unidiomatic phrase "authority + for"; remember, "authority + to" is the correct, idiomatic construction. Further, Option E uses the needlessly wordy phrase "with the intent of protecting", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

Hence, C is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Phrase Comma Subject" and "Subject Comma Phrase" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



To understand the concept of "Infinitive" vs "Present Participle" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team
_________________

Answer : Guess the answer should be C

A : Incorrect use of 'being'
B : to borrow....to protect should be used
C : Correct
D : 'for borrowing' is incorrect
E : 'for borrowing' is incorrect

Most states impose limitations on the authority of the legislature to borrow money, with their objectives being to protect taxpayers and the credit of the state government.

A. to borrow money, with their objectives being to protect to borrow correct but being to is not preferred.
B. to borrow money, the objectives of which are the protecting of to borrow correct, but of which are the awkward and wordy
C. to borrow money, limitations intended to protect to borrow, limitations intended - correct meaning and concise
D. for borrowing money, of which the objective is protecting for borrowing money - incorrect
E. for borrowing money, limitations with the intent of protectingfor borrowing money - incorrect

Good explanation and the correct answer is C. I should point out a key issue on answer choice A. You cite pronoun ambiguity as the reason to eliminate answer choice A, but the GMAT has shown a surprising tolerance for pronoun ambiguity, so you shouldn't use that for elminations. Stragnely, the GMAT is almost completely intolerant of the word "being" (OG13 #100 is one of the few correct uses of the word being), so you can comfortably eliminate choices with "being".

KW
_________________

Hi kyle,
I understand E is wrong due to idiom error but I would like to know if the following is incorrect in E. Kindly help.
' limitations with the intent of protecting'
_________________

There is nothing grammatically wrong with the phrase "limitations with the intent of protecting", but when we compare it to the alternative, "limitations intended to protect", we can see it's shortcomings. "Intended to protect" is a much stronger phrase with a very clear meaning, whereas "limitations with the intent of protecting" is awkward and a bit unclear. Also, this is one of the few times that you can use Concision to make an elimination on the GMAT. Most people think that Concision means the shortest answer choice, but that is not the case at all. If fact, very often when you apply the Concision rule correctly, you are eliminating the shorter answer choices. Concision really means focusing on word selection and choosing a single word as opposed to a phrase. In this case, "Intended" is more concise than "with the intent", so you would eliminate E on that basis.

Hope that helps.

KW
_________________

Hi Kylie
Please help. I am confused about c because it is a run on sentence. It has 2 independent sentences.
Most states impose limitations on the authority of the legislature to borrow money
Limitations intended to protect X n Y.

Thanks

Excellent explanations!

Just want to understand the for borrowing idiom error -

If choice C was re-stated as follows using for preposition, will it still be correct..

C. to borrow money for borrowing, limitations intended to protect.

Hi nt2010.

I don't think "for borrowing" is wrong idiom. The point, here, is the difference between "to + Verb" and "for + Verb-ing". As egmat (a legend gmat instructor) says "Don’t only trust your ears or instincts. Read on to know why they [to verb or for Verb-ing] don’t get grammatical approval."

In short:

*To + Verb ==> talks about purpose or intent
*For + Verb-ing ==> talks about reason or "what for"

Examples:
I study Gmat to apply Ph.D ==> intention is very clear, so "To + Verb" is correct.
I got admired for graduating Ph.D ==> The reason I got admired is I graduated Ph.D ==> "for + Verb-ing" is correct. We cannot say "to graduate" - intention here.

Back to the question. "For borrowing" is wrong because the intended meaning is "impose limitations on X to do Y". Not "impose limitations on X for/because of doing Y"

Please refer to the link below for details:
to-verb-vs-for-verb-ing-144017.html

Hope it helps.

Strictly speaking, no, the idiom "limitations for" is not correct. If you wanted to use the participle borrowing, you could say "limitations ON borrowing" and it would be a correct idiom.

That said, I don't think this is an idiom that you would be likely to see on the GMAT. The incorrect idiom, "limitations for borrowing", is a bit awkward but the intended meaning is still clear. Here is a similar example that I think you could still see on the GMAT because the meaning is significantly impacted by different idiom forms: mistake for vs mistake to. Be careful not to mistake the cat for an intruder [the cat is not an intruder]. Be careful not to mistake the cat to an intruder [you are going to give the cat to an intruder?].

KW
_________________

The portion after the comma is not an independent sentence; notice the absence of an "are" or "were" before "intended".
"Intended" functions as an adjective providing info. about the limitations.

Look at this shortened version of the sentence, in which it is clear how "intended" modifies "limitations":
Many states impose limitations intended to protect X.

In the given sentence, "on the authority....money" also modifies the limitations. This inclusion makes it difficult to use a pronoun such as "which" before "intended" to refer all the way back to limitations.

To resolve this difficulty, you can either repeat the noun (limitations) or use another noun that expresses the essence of the action that "intended" modifies (e.g."an action").


--Prasad
_________________

C looks may look like a run-on sentence but it is not. For it to be a run-on sentence it would need two independent clauses separated by a comma. An independent clause requires a working (tensed) verb. The word "intended" looks like a verb (past tense) but it's really the past participle acting as a modifier for limitations. To illustrate: I created curfew limitations intended to keep the kids safe. The verb is "created" and "intended" is modifying the word limitations (what type of limitations? the type intended to keep kids safe). To make "intended" a verb I would say: I intended to keep kids safe by creating curfew limitations (here "intended" is acting as the verb). Since we don't have a working verb in the section after the comma, we don't have a run-on sentence.

Does that help?

KW
_________________

A use of prepositional is wrong as it does not convey the intended meaning .
Moreover the use of " being is incorrect "
B Use of " which " is wrong and we have to use noun form of a word so " protecting " is wrong .
C correct as the second clause gives us extra information regarding the limitations .
D use for is not correct ," to borrow " is idiomatically correct
E same error and again use of with is wrong .

Can sum1 pls explain what is the idiom error with borrowing for and how borrow to is correct ?

The problem is not with "borrow", it could have been any other verb. The idiomatic issue lies with "limitation / limit to" and "limitations / limit for". The former is better. The preposition "to" goes better with "limit" / "limitations".

"There is no limit to what I can do" is better than "There is no limit for what I can do".

The preposition "for" indicates the the person or entity for whom the limitaion is applicable:

There is no limitation FOR the guests TO drink.... correct.

C is The most correct, but it s grammatically wrong since a comma cannot separate an independent clause

Posted from my mobile device

matt882

1. I couldn't quite get your idea. How can a choice be grammatically incorrect and still the most correct?
2. Which is the independent clause that is separated by a comma? As far as I see, there is only a resumptive modifier (a sort of an appositive) that modifies another noun in the previous part.
_________________