mSKR wrote:
Hi
AndrewN AjiteshArun sirs
I think this is one of the toughest question. Much has not been discussed on this yet.
Usually during my analysis , I end up in reaching at correct option with one or the other reason. But in this question , I was left with open ends in more than one option , thus end up in choosing wrong answer.
As I end up in choosing wrong option even after my detailed analysis , I think I still lack some skill that was needed in this question .Please check my analysis.
( Please reply at your convenience time even later is ok . But kindly check the analysis part)
Quote:
The proposed health care bill would increase government regulation of health insurance, establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers changing jobs who otherwise could be uncovered for months.
The meaning I understood : (If I need to express in my words)
The proposed health care bill would increase government regulation of health insurance
to establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people xyz and
to workers who are changing
jobs as otherwise these workers could be uncovered for months.
Red indicates the variation at these words for each option to select/reject.
Quote:
(A) establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers changing jobs who
I rejected A because I could not make establish in parallel with increase
Kept on hold:
to workers changing jobs whoAt this point I had question in mind: Is it must for relative pronouns to be next to subject it is modifying? As I was not 100% confident on this , I moved on as I had rejected A due to some other major factor.
4 more to goQuote:
(B) establishing standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers who are changing jobs and
Establishing – better as verb+ing modifier
- acceptedWorkers who are better
- accepted And ? looking for parallelism _ need analysis
Meaning wise: parallel to what?
Are changing jobs || could be uncovered ?
It seems
could be uncovered make more sense with workers after changing jobs by them ( some result of changing job) .
But still not so satisfying with presence of
andAs I had no other strong reason to reject B, so I kept on hold B
Quote:
(C) to establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers who change jobs that
Why
comma before
to ? -it would have been better without comma as I expected sentence in my words. - kept on hold to look for other error if any.
Jobs that could be uncovered for months? Maybe it meant jobs that have health benefits covered?
Could it be meaning wise: Health standards to jobs
Establish standards that would guarantee wider access to workers who change jobs in which standards would remain uncovered for months? Does it mean some jobs have standards and some don’t have ? But we were talking about workers and people and why suddenly jump off to jump. It may not be correct sentence then.
Less priority to choose this answer in presence of B. So reject C .
Quote:
(D) for establishing standards that would guarantee wider access for people with past health problems and workers changing jobs who
Comma + For ( suddenly FANBOYS come up in mind)-
i don't see any error hereIdiom is : access to/not access for –
keep it on hold Can it be for people and (for) workers --> still can not reject on this basis alone --
-keep on holdWorkers changing jobs who? Not easy to understand as meaning is not clear and not nicely written.
Because workers and people are parallel so the discussion is about workers not about jobs. So workers changing jobs should mean workers who are changing jobs and as a result they would remain uncovered
I really can’t make sense out of these 3 words (Workers changing jobs) without any no comma in between.
I rejected D in presence of B.
Quote:
(E) for the establishment of standards that would guarantee wider access for people with past health problems and workers who are changing jobs that
Again for + comma – lovely fan boys :
i don't see any error here Establishment is not better than establish-
let’s keep on holdFor people and( for) workers –
not wrong Jobs that ? – not so good but who are changing jobs is relative pronoun phrase , then
that can still make sense to connect with workers. I have seen that jumping over other words , so here
that should be fine .
can that refers to workers - yes of course
In view of above pending points
I shortlisted B and E
But finally gave my thumbs up to E
and rejected B because of “
and otherwise “.
Please give your comments on my analysis and thinking process of this question. ( this is usually how I tackle SC questions)
I think I was close in B and E but maybe due to lack of some skill I missed B option. Please guide what have I missed and how could I have handled this confusion.
Hope this post won't take much of your time.
sorry for the long post
Hello,
mSKR. I agree with what
ravigupta2912 has written above. For my part, I think your approach seems overwrought. Although I had not thought to focus on the end of the underlined portion, as
daagh outlined in his post, the beginning provides enough for us to comfortably land on (B). My thoughts below.
smashingpumpkins wrote:
The proposed health care bill would increase government regulation of health insurance, establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers changing jobs who otherwise could be uncovered for months.
(A) establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers changing jobs who
I read
establish as the second action in a parallel series: [would]
increase, establish, and [something else]. The problem is that that third action never shows up. The entire infinitive phrase that fills in the latter part of the sentence, then, is missing the mark. We either need another action or an
and to denote a two-part series of actions. This should be an easier elimination.
smashingpumpkins wrote:
(B) establishing standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers who are changing jobs and
The participle correctly comments on the clause prior to the comma. Then, the
guarantee extends to two groups of people, those
with past health problems and those
who are changing jobs and otherwise could be uncovered for months. We happen to get a fork within the information pertaining to the latter group, but that is fine. In short, we have no compelling reason to go against this answer choice. Keep looking for other, more problematic options.
smashingpumpkins wrote:
(C) to establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers who change jobs that
You said it yourself,
Why is there a comma before "to"? Answer: for no good reason at all. This is not to say that you will never see a comma before "to" in a correctly written sentence, but in this particular sentence, even if it is shorthand for
in order to, its presence is unwarranted. This is enough to eliminate the answer choice. (No need to go further.)
smashingpumpkins wrote:
(D) for establishing standards that would guarantee wider access for people with past health problems and workers changing jobs who
(E) for the establishment of standards that would guarantee wider access for people with past health problems and workers who are changing jobs that
These latter options fall into the same category as the
to in (C). There is no compelling reason to slide into
for after the comma, since this is not usage in which the conjunction joins two independent clauses (more or less standing in for
since). Compare the following truncated versions of the main clause:
(A) The bill would increase regulation, establish standards... [without third action]
(B) The bill would increase regulation, establishing standards...
(C) The bill would increase regulation, to establish standards... (would be better without the comma)
(D) The bill would increase regulation, for establishing standards... (again, the comma hampers the sentence)
(E) The bill would increase regulation, for the establishment of standards... (same as above)
This is about as far as I got with any of the answer choices before I read the rest of (B), felt fine about it, and chose it. When I say
overwrought above, I think you are probably combing through each option, one by one, looking for whatever you can find, and you are getting lost in the process. I liken the task more to safe-cracking. You want to get in and get out, to walk away with what you came to get without standing around to admire the job. (See, I told you that
to could follow a comma.) If you are unsure about a particular point, that is fine. Just look for others. But rarely will I go through each answer choice and weigh its pros and cons. It is more like I group answers, aiming to take out the worst of that subgroup until I am left with nothing but the best of each major group. I then compare and further narrow the pool of options until I am left with the best of the best. In this manner, I do not waste time or mental energy seeking to prove or disprove more than I have to.
I hope that helps. I know I did not touch on all points from your post, but that is just the point I am hoping to make.
- Andrew
close
Updated on: 14 Nov 2018, 04:35
45%
(medium)
35%
(02:08)
wrong 
