Charlotte Perkins Gilman, a late nineteenth-century feminist, called
[#permalink]
27 Jul 2020, 14:18
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).