Federal legislation establishing a fund for the cleanup of sites damag

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Concepts tested here: Parallelism + Idioms + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• Any elements linked by a conjunction (“but” in this case) must be parallel.
• When “damage” is used as a noun, “damage to” is the correct, idiomatic usage.

A: Correct. This answer choice maintains parallelism between “permits compensating state governments for damage to their natural resources” and “does not allow claims for injury to people”. Further, Option A correctly uses the idiomatic construction “damage to”. Additionally, Option A is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

B: This answer choice fails to maintain parallelism between “permits compensating state governments for the damaging of their natural resources” and” does not allow claims for injury to people”; please remember, any elements linked by a conjunction (“but” in this case) must be parallel. Further, Option B uses the passive voice construction “the damaging of”, rendering it awkward and needlessly wordy.

C: This answer choice fails to maintain parallelism between “giving state governments compensation for damaging their natural resources” and "does not allow claims for injury to people”; please remember, any elements linked by a conjunction (“but” in this case) must be parallel. Further, Option C uses the passive and needlessly wordy constructions “giving state governments compensation” and “for damaging”, leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

D: This answer choice fails to maintain parallelism between “giving compensation to state governments for the damage of their natural resources” and "does not allow claims for injury to people”; please remember, any elements linked by a conjunction (“but” in this case) must be parallel. Further, Option D incorrectly uses the unidiomatic construction “damage of”; please remember, when “damage” is used as a noun, “damage to” is the correct, idiomatic usage. Additionally, Option D uses the passive and needlessly wordy construction “giving compensation to state governments” leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

E: This answer choice fails to maintain parallelism between “the giving of compensation to state governments for damaging their natural resources” and "does not allow claims for injury to people”; please remember, any elements linked by a conjunction (“but” in this case) must be parallel. Further, Option E uses the needlessly wordy constructions “the giving of” and “for damaging”, leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

Hence, A is the best answer choice.

All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Federal legislation establishing a fund for the cleanup of sites damaged by toxic chemicals permits compensating state governments for damage to their natural resources but does not allow claims for injury to people.


(A) compensating state governments for damage to - idiomatic and parallelism is maintained.
(B) compensating state governments for the damaging of - "for the damaging" not parallel to"for injury to people"
(C) giving state governments compensation for damaging -not parallel to"for injury to people"
(D) giving compensation to state governments for the damage of- "the damage of" not parallen to "for injury to "
(E) the giving of compensation to state governments for damaging - "giving of compensation " unidiomatic

I would go with A.

IMO A.

Clues:
1. In the case, the damage has already been done and that's the reason federal legislation is a fund. It must be damage rather than damaging. So, A and D are left.

2. "compensating" is acting as a gerund here. So, it is better option than "...compensation...".

3. || is followed b/w "for damage to their" and "for injury to people".

I hope this helps.

Federal legislation establishing a fund for the cleanup of sites damaged by toxic chemicals permits compensating state governments for damage to their natural resources but does not allow claims for injury to people.

(A) compensating state governments for damage to
(B) compensating state governments for the damaging of
(C) giving state governments compensation for damaging
(D) giving compensation to state governments for the damage of
(E) the giving of compensation to state governments for damaging

=> X to Y and W to Z.
So, A is the answer.

Fed legislation permits compensating state Gov for damage to their natural resources.

idiomatic - damage to

A) compensating state governments for damage to …. for damage to //to for injury to – correct choice

(B) compensating state governments for the damaging of ----for the damaging of not // to for injury to
(C) giving state governments compensation for damaging ….. for damaging not // to for injury to
(D) giving compensation to state governments for the damage of -----= for the damage of not // to for injury to

(E) the giving of compensation to state governments for damaging --- for damaging not // to for injury to

chemicals permits compensating state governments for damage to their natural resources
but does not allow claims for injury to people.
(A) compensating state governments for damage to shoot
(B) compensating state governments for the damaging of unparallel
(C) giving state governments compensation for damaging wordy+unparallel
(D) giving compensation to state governments for the damage of reasons are same as C
(E) the giving of compensation to state governments for damaging reasons are same as C

Could some experts please clarify this question in terms of "......permits compensating state governments for......"

What is "compensating state governments"? What is it role in the sentence?

chetan2u, could you please help?

hi,
the sentence reads--
Federal legislation establishing a fund for the cleanup of sites damaged by toxic chemicals permits compensating state governments for damage to their natural resources but does not allow claims for injury to people...

A legislation permits SOMETHING...
WHAT is this something -- compensating state governments for damage to their natural resources but does not allow claims for injury to people...
so compensating here acts as a gerund and behaves like a noun..

How can you check whether it is gerund here..
replace with a NOUN and see if it still stands..
Federal legislation establishing a fund for the cleanup of sites damaged by toxic chemicals permits compensating state governments for damage to their natural resources but does not allow claims for injury to people alcohol..
may not make sense but is correct grammatically so the original --compensating- is a NOUN..

again compensating X for WHAT -- for damage to....

Though I got the answer. The construction of the sentence seems awkward and I am not able to find the verb. Experts please help. anairamitch1804

Federal legislation establishing a fund for the cleanup of sites damaged by toxic chemicals permits compensating state governments for damage to their natural resources
but does not allow claims for injury to people.
(A) compensating state governments for damage to - Correct
(B) compensating state governments for the damaging of - damaging of is incorrect
(C) giving state governments compensation for damaging - ‘Compensating’ is better than “giving compensation”
(D) giving compensation to state governments for the damage of - same as C
(E) the giving of compensation to state governments for damaging - same as C

Answer A

A is the best option. It has the proper idiomatic structure (damage to), maintains parallelism (damage to parallels injury to) and is the most concise.

if we say " compensate for damaging", the meaning is that we compensate for the action of damaging but not for the damage, the loss. so, the meaning of "compensate for damaging" is opposite to the "compensate for the damage" somewhat. so, choices b, c and e is wrong.

"for damaging" make opposite meaning to " for damage to".
"for damaing' mean pay money to the person who damage or pay for the damaging. funny meaning. I damage your car and,so, I get money.

How is compensating state government parallel to Claims. Isnt compensating state government a simple gerund whereas claims a noun? Should the sentence not have been compensating of state governments?

Hi Jainavanti268, the parallelism here is actually between permits and does (not allow), both of them verbs.

This is a question that appeared on our Ask Me Anything About SC thread -- and I figured that I'd post it here too, just in case it helps somebody out there:


(D) has a meaning problem. "The damage of their natural resources," makes it sound as though the natural resources are causing the damage, or worse, are the damage themselves! That doesn't make sense. It's far more logical to write that the damage is happening to the natural resources. This is what we find in (A), which is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!