Charlotte Perkins Gilman, a late nineteenth-century feminist, called

D. llism=> for x and y.

Charlotte Perkins Gilman, a late nineteenth-century feminist, called "for urban apartment houses that included child-care facilities" and "for clustered suburban houses with communal eating and social facilities"

"called for urban apartment houses including child-care facilities"
This means child-care facilities are a type of apartment houses. This obviously is wrong
Hence IMO D is correct

Hey mundasingh123:

Thanks for the invitation to reply! Good question - I think the best way to look at it is that "called for" is a verb...well, actually "called" is the verb. So the noun that follows "called for" is the object:

The president called for change.
The new management called for a strict dress code.

Because "called for" is akin to a command or request, it's pretty common to have a to-verb in there because the request is usually for the noun to do something:

The president called for North Korea to end its nuclear program.
The new administration called for employees to wear ties and jackets to client meetings.

Another common way to set off two verbs is to use the word "that":

The president called for a North Korea that obeyed UN regulations.
The new administration called for employees that were well-dressed.

With "that", at least in these past-tense cases, it's more of a passive action than an active one (which is where "to _____" would come in). Either form is okay as long as the verb is logical, etc.



On this question, you're right that E would be correct if it were also parallel ("called for urban apartments to include childcare and for suburban housing to have...").

I hope that helps...

Brian thanks for Clarifying the issues regarding called for.
It would be extremely helpful if you could clarify the usage of the present participle with the preposition in the following sentence.
1)I heard about Peter winnning the Marathon
2)I heard about Peter's winning the marathon.
Could you please clarify whether the structure of sentence 2 is correct.I have created a gerund by using the possessive form of Peter.I find it puzzling that Sentence 1 doesnt have a gerund and still the sentence is correct.Is it an idiomatic expression or can it be explain grammatically?
Please help.

Hey mundasingh123:

Interesting question - and, honestly, I don't think that this is anything they'll test specifically so I'm not too worried about it either way. I've reluctantly learned what "participle" and "gerund" mean over the years, but I could still answer these questions correct 99% of the time without knowing those terms/concepts 5-6 years ago because I focused on the bigger-picture errors that they explicitly do test.

In this case, I actually think that the second one is wrong and the first one is right. "Peter's winning the marathon" gives you two nouns in a row which you really can't have without a transition. You'd probably have to say that "I heard about Peter's winning OF the marathon", which is also really awkward and probably wrong, too, but you need a way to separate those two nouns.

Sentence 1...you know, if I had a choice between:

I heard about Peter winning the marathon

and

I heard that Peter won the marathon

I'd pick #2 every time. In that comparison, the first may actually be wrong because the modifier "winning the marathon" could refer to both "I" and "Peter". Did I hear about him while I was winning the marathon? Or did I hear that he won the marathon? If I had a choice that left this potential ambiguity out of the mix (like my proposed #2), I'd definitely take #2.

________________________________________________________________________

Now, hopefully that explanation doesn't confuse more than it clarifies, but even if it does, I think it brings up an important point about GMAT sentence correction: even the editors at the New York Times struggle with some of this nitty-gritty grammar stuff, and usually if they get to that point they'll just rewrite the sentence entirely. Simply put, it's impossible for a pre-MBA student to become perfect at "all things grammar". The best you can do is:

1) Do the things that you can get good at - the major error categories like S-V agreement, Modifiers, etc. - extremely well, and look for opportunities to use those first.

2) When you're down to a few remaining choices and it seems as though you can't use the major categories, then look at Logical Meaning and Clarity of Meaning - does the sentence make logical sense? Is there room for ambiguity and/or confusion? More often than not thinking logically is much more effective than is trying to break down sentences on a purely grammatical basis. I'd argue that using the words "gerund" or "participle" in your thought process on the verbal section is akin to multiplying a series of 3-digit numbers on the quant section - you could do it, but you're probably working too hard and overlooking an easier way (logic on the verbal; number properties on the quant).

I hope that helps...

Hi Brian, I am concentrating on the areas that you mentioned but every now and then i face a deadend when i come across a 700 level (or anything that is tough for me ) question on the gmat club/BTG. Most of the time i am not able to bracket such questions under any of the sections that you highlighted.

I hear you...I'd just challenge you to look for ways to consider questions along these more-strategic lines and you'll get a much, much higher return-on-investment of your study time and energy that way. There IS a way to solve all valid GMAT SC questions using the big-picture error categories that you see everyone talk about on here and/or Logic/Clarity strategy. They may not admit it publicly for political reasons, but the people behind the GMAT laugh at what a mess the GRE is as a test, mainly because it focuses too much on more-or-less arbitrary "knowledge" and not enough on "reasoning". You can think your way through the GMAT...which is why it's a good test! How often in your career have you had to or been able to memorize your way out of a business situation?

So...challenge yourself to find bigger-picture ways to solve these problems. And ask for those reasons on the forums here. It may be frustrating at first, but you'll start to see that there's definite strategy to Sentence Correction.

Answer: D

Essentially, the sentence is saying: Charlotte Perkins Gilman, a late nineteenth-century feminist, called for urban apartment houses... and .........clustered suburban houses

Strike one: Parallelism - it should be 'called for...and for...' --> eliminate A
Strike two: Idiom - it should be 'urban apartment houses that ...' --> eliminate C and E
Strike three: it should be '[called for] clustered suburban houses with...' --> eliminate B

Charlotte Perkins Gilman, a late nineteenth-century feminist, called for urban apartment houses including child-care facilities and clustered suburban houses including communal eating and social facilities.

(A) including child-care facilities and clustered suburban houses including communal eating and social facilities
Parallelism is not respected, we need "and for" -> called for urban apartment .... and for ....

(B) that included child-care facilities, and for clustered suburban houses to include communal eating and social facilities
NOK

(C) with child-care facilities included and for clustered suburban houses to include communal eating and social facilities
"With" and "included" are redundant

(D) that included child-care facilities and for clustered suburban houses with communal eating and social facilities
Correct

(E) to include child-care facilities and for clustered suburban houses with communal eating and social facilities included
NOK

Why isn't A the correct answer since it uses 'including' in a parallel way for the two things?
Option D uses 'that included' and 'with' for the two things.

mikemcgarry, MagooshExpert hi there how are you in your post here https://gmatclub.com/forum/preposition- ... 63895.html

you say that " If the participle is a past participle, i.e. an passive participle, such as "called", then this is not going to be a problem at all."

Then Why "with child-care facilities included" ---> preposition + noun + participle is WRONG ?

please explain

thank you,

D

Hi dave13,

Happy to help!

Actually, the "with + noun + participle" part here is totally correct If the sentence just stopped there, it would be fine:

Charlotte Perkins Gilman, a late nineteenth-century feminist, called for urban apartment houses with child-care facilities included.

The problem comes in with the second part: "for ... to include...". Since these two parts are connected by "and", they should be in parallel, so they should have the same structure. The structure "with ... included" is not parallel with "for ... to include" (not to mention very clunky and redundant), and that's why C is incorrect.

I hope that helps!
-Carolyn

Daagh Sir
Why did you mention that A doesn't maintain parallelism.
Why the form "A called for X(noun phrase-1) & Y(noun phrase-2)" not correct. "for" may not be required to repeat after "&".

e.g. President called for empathy & understanding.

You need to remember a few general rules first:

[prep]. +[noun] + [present/past participle] is not always wrong!

this construction is wrong when the object of this prep phrase is different from the subject of the main clause.
For example: With American cryptanalysists breaking the Japanese code, the Japanese Imperial Fleet losing the strategic element of surprise at Midway.
This example is wrong because the object of the "with" prepositional phrase ("American cryptanalysists") is different from the subject of the main clause (Japanese Imperial Flee).

There is also an exception:

this construction is correct when that prepositional phrase serves as a description.
How do you know when it serves as a description? --> if we drop the [present/past participle] and it still makes sense, then that prep. phrase serves as description. Otherwise, it is illegal.

For example: With chloroplasts accounting for much of its biomass, the Euglena can manufacture its own food from sunlight, as plants do, when external food is not available.
Here, "chloroplasts" is different from the subject of the main clause "Euglena". However, this sentence is still correct because if we omit the [present participal] "accounting for much of its biomass", this sentence would still make sense! -->
With chloroplasts, the Euglena can manufacture its own food from sunlight, as plants do, when external food is not available.
Here, this prep. phrase serves as a description. Therefore, this sentence is correct.

In addition, this is only the case when the preposition is alone. i.e. "call for" wouldn't apply here, because it is a idiom and has its own rules even though it has a "for" in the end.


Now, let's come back to the problem.

Based on the above rules, only E could be eliminated, because "communal eating and social facilities" (object of that "with" clause) is different from the subject.

The constructions [prep]. +[noun] + [present/past participle] in A, B, C are not wrong! Instead, they are wrong because they are not parallel / changes in meaning / comma

A: "including" sounds like child-care facilities is a type of urban apartment houses. Therefore, change of meaning.

B. wrong usage of comma. " , and" means that it is in the format of "A, B, and C" or followed by an independent clause. B is neither of those two. Therefore, B wrong.
In addition, B sounds like "to include communal eating and social facilities" apply to both "urban apartment houses" and "clustered suburban houses". Why? Because the first "for" doesn't have infinitive "to" but the second "for" does. Therefore, it creates an illusion that the infinitive apply to both "for". A clearer visualization would be:

Charlotte Perkins Gilman, a late nineteenth-century feminist, called for urban apartment houses that included child-care facilities, and for clustered suburban houses to include communal eating and social facilities

C. this choice makes the same mistake as the "infinitive apply to both" mistake in B (see the explanation for B). To correct this, we need a parallel construction: either both have infinitive "to", or eliminate the "to" and use "that", "with", or other words that don't affect parallel construction. ("that", "with" don't affect parallel construction because they demonstrate a characteristics / attributes of a subject)

D. This choice is correct because of the above explanations in C.

E. Now, E doesn't have the same mistake as the "infinitive apply to both" mistake in B (see the explanation for B). However, E is simply not parallel --> the first "for" phrase uses infinitive "to", but the second "for" phrase doesn't have infinitive. Therefore, E wrong.
In addition, E is wrong based on the [prep]. +[noun] + [present/past participle]. But again, this construction also appears in other answer choices but they are not wrong! This construction is wrong only in E (see explanation above).

Please help to clarify on below queries:

A: why is it necessary to have "for" after end?
C/E: Do words "with" and "includes" show redundancy? ( Both can not be present together? as in other examples: perhaps maybe etc.)

VeritasPrepBrian daagh

Please can someone explain why B is incorrect and D is correct?

Someone called for urban apartment houses AND clustered suburban houses.
100% sure no grammar mistake. Also, the parallelism is much better in A than in D. So I think A should be the answer.