Charlotte Parkins Gilman, a late nineteenth-century

gotoknow3,

your answer doesn't make any sense, as I can see there're 4 alternatives with called for .....and...for...

Anybody else wants to explain this SC.....and please explain!

A is out. the meaning doesn't make any sense.
B can be left out for the same reason. To call suburban houses to include....? My English is crap but good enough to know that a house can not do any anction.
C is out for the same reason that B has been left out. The same for D.

So the only good answer-choice is D.

Go with D.

Question is about parallelism. Reading the original sentence, we notice that we need to begin the underlined portion with "that" to identify the houses. You can immediately cross out all the choice except B and D.
Between B and D, I selected D because B contains "to include" which indicates a tense change.

D just doesn't make sense to me. Calling for what? We can't just say "I am calling for the buildings." Can we?

It has to be B.

The answer should be B.

Option D changes the meaning of the original sentance by using "with". The original sentance uses "including" and therefore we must use "to include" to preserve the meaning.

Am I the only one who vote for (A)?

I know I'm always wrong when I go against the flow, but still I can't help leaning toward (A).

She is calling for two things;
- urban apartment houses with(=including) child-care facilities
- clustered suburban houses with(=including) communal eating and social facilities

So I piack (A).

Called for s-thing that +passive... is idiomatic.

Between B and D, D is the lesser of the two evils.

My pick is D!

This shows that PNP rule - the preposition noun participle - which is not acceptable structure as per standard engligh grammar. That means we can rule out C and E.
As the sentence tests parallelism the preferred structure is to have 'for' repeated before clustered houses - so we can rule out A based on this.

So its between B and D - B does not sound right what with - called for....to include.
SO i pick D!

we need "for" after and for parallelism.
A - Not parallel - "for" not present after "and".
B - to include changes tense between two parallel statements. Not correct.
C - Tense change. Not correct.
E - Tense change. Not correct.

My choice - D.

B/t what is OA?

Why should there be two "for"s ?

I think "call for X and Y" is better than "call for X and for Y"...

(But I'm only 3% sure )

This "for" is not redundant coz it makes the parallelism, without the second " for" , one may think that "clustered suburban houses " is a part of "that included ".

I've got to go with D.

A. "including" is incorrect in this context, it has to be "to include" or "that included"
B. lacks parallelism between "that included" and "to include"
C. lacks parallelism between "included" and "to include"
E. lacks parallelism between "to include" and "included"

[quote="macca"]Charlotte Parkins 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
The construction is ambiguous. This reads as if he was calling for apartment houses that included both child care facilities and suburban houses.

(B) that included child-care facilities, and for clustered suburban houses to include communal eating and social facilities
that included and to include is not parallel.

(C) with child-care facilities included and for clustered suburban houses to include communal eating and social facilities
Again included and to include is not parallel.

(D) that included child-care facilities and for clustered suburban houses with communal eating and social facilities
This is be best. He calls for A that included something and for B with something else.

(E) to include child-care facilities and for clustered suburban houses with communal eating and social facilities included
Again not parallel.

D