rakesh22 wrote:
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
(B) that included child-care facilities, and for clustered suburban houses to include communal eating and social facilities
(C) with child-care facilities included and for clustered suburban houses to include communal eating and social facilities
(D) that included child-care facilities and for clustered suburban houses with communal eating and social facilities
(E) to include child-care facilities and for clustered suburban houses with communal eating and social facilities included
Ouch, in my humble opinion, this question will do nothing but confuse prospective test takers.
Subject + “-to call for” + object noun
This construction includes a phrasal verb that essentially means that the subject proclaims publicly that something (usually some change) must happen.
There is a logical issue with the correct answer D. As part of colloquial, everyday speech, one might say something along the lines of:
“I call for a new holiday!”
However, in formal written English, what one usually “calls for” is some kind of change or action, such as a “ban”, “boycott”, “change” , “revolt” , etc. In effect, one calls for an Action, not a concrete noun. So, instead of the above example:
Ex: “I call for the ENACTMENT of a new holiday!”
The logical issue with the correct answer D is the following:
“Perkins called for urban apartment houses that included child-care facilities.”
Two issues:
(1) “that” is, at best, ambiguous. At worst, the “that” functions as a relative pronoun modifying “apartment houses.”
So, reading and understanding version D precisely, one would understand that Perkins called for “urban apartment houses that (already) included (x).”
However, this would be illogical since Perkins is calling for a prospective change, not a concrete noun.
(II) The second issue is the use of the past tense “included” as a finite verb.
At the time Perkins made the call for a change, the apartment house would not have the child-care facilities she presumably wanted.
Even assuming the use of “that” is acceptable, since it would be a forward looking statement from her point of view, anchored in the past, one might say:
“Perkins called for urban apartment houses [that] WOULD include (the changes).”
None of the answers seem to get it quite right and since it is not an official question, I’m not sure that spending any time on this one would prove to be beneficial.
Posted from my mobile device