The central issue before the court was how far the regulatory agencies

Wow, an official SC question I had not laid eyes on. Thank you for drawing my attention to it, PyjamaScientist. From the timer statistics, most people seem torn between answer choices (A) and (E), as I was myself, although a fair number opt for (C). I did select (A), but only after 1:33, a full 37 seconds off my typical pacing for Hard questions. I agree that although we have two posts above in which the OE is given, a full treatment from an Expert (without an eye on that OE) is warranted. I cannot resist the challenge.


Split: in requiring versus as far as requiring versus to require:

We can really pick up this particular sentence at the how clause, especially because of the X was Y overarching frame, in which Y more or less defines or describes X. Consider the barebones version:

1) how far {someone or something} would go in requiring {something}
Analysis: I hate to invoke idioms, but this in + gerund form works in this context. I considered a similar sentence that adopted the same structure:

a) ... how far he would go in pursuing his goal

That works. I could even see the gerund giving way to pursuit of, but the important point is that in is not incorrect. Leave answer choices (A) and (C) alone on this consideration. However, I often look to group similar options and knock out the weaker one (or weakest, if there are more than two) so that I do not have to juggle as much information. Compare (A) and (C) side by side and remove parts of overlap that will not help us separate one option from the other:


I hope you can appreciate that the original sentence more directly conveys what the sentence is driving at: requiring {something} in factories versus their requirement that factories should have {something}. I actually paused when I hit their, even if it has a clear referent in regulatory agencies. It seems unnecessary to write, how far the regulatory agencies should go in {the regulatory agencies'} requirement, not to mention that should has no business in there at all: requirement that factories have {something} can stand on its own. If you have trouble seeing the point I am making, replace have with adopt, and I think it will make sense. While I am on the topic, I am not overly fond of the generic verb have—to be, to have, and to do/to make are three of the most overused verbs in English, and polished writers often use these dummy verbs sparingly (*essay tip*). There is nothing incorrect about the verb, but it achieves nothing in the way of clarity that (A) does not. In short, I would cut (C).


2) how far {someone or something} would go as far as requiring {something}
Analysis: There is a glaring redundancy in as far as, which is used, most frequently in casual conversation, to mean to the extent/degree that. The diction seems off, and the repetition is needless. Get rid of answer choices (B) and (D) immediately.


3) how far {someone or something} should go to require {someone to do something}
Analysis: This one is tricky, and your ear can deceive you. Once again, I considered a similar sentence for comparison:

b) ... how far he was willing to go to win

I would have no qualms about writing the above. But notice that the infinitive to win does not invoke an agent beyond what we are already given in he. This feature is different from what we see in answer choice (E): how far the regulatory agencies should go to require factories. Any way we look at it, the requirement is delayed by a step, and the sentence is going to have to do (see, I told you these verb forms pop up all the time) more work to deliver on the setup. And just what do we get after factories? Another generic verb form in to have: to require factories to have better working conditions. If the clear and concise expression of vital meaning is the goal, then (E) looks subpar next to (A).


My doubts in (E), then, were two-fold: 1) the delay of vital information on the actual requirement to invoke an agent instead; and 2) the use of a verb form, a generic one at that, when another option sidestepped the issue.

Between doubts and no doubts, I chose what I perceived to be the safer option. Whatever the OE may say, I will add that I call matters as I see them, nothing more.

Thank you for thinking to ask. Perhaps this response will prove useful to you and others.

- Andrew