From Official Guide - Sentence Correction

The bare infinitive can be a noun, but in the example sentence 'sink' is not the bare infinitive of 'sinking' because they refer to two different things in the English language (sinkage also refers to something else). On the other hand, 'capture' is the bare infinitive of 'capturing'. Unfortunately, there is no clear rule for this, which makes it even more difficult for non-native speakers.

Only use 'the' with gerund phrases. Any answer choice that uses 'a' or 'an' with a gerund is incorrect.

Would you please elaborate why bare infinitive can not be used as noun. Please explain with some other examples where it sounds odd and others where it can be used. Your explaining would be of great help to me.

Neha

Consider the following two sentences:

(a) The boy was punished for the whipping of his classmate.
(b) The boy was punished for the whip of his classmate.

In sentence (a), the boy was punished for the action of using a whip on his classmate.
In sentence (b), the boy was punished for having a whip that belonged to his classmate. This is awkward and would not be the correct answer on the GMAT.

This is why you cannot replace the "whipping" with the bare infinitive. The "whip" is not an action noun; it is an object.

Back to the example sentence:

He received a medal for sinking of an enemy ship and the capture of its crew.

The "sink" is not an action noun, but the "capture" is. You can exchange the "capturing" with the "capture" and the sentence would still make sense.

You need to be able to recognize whether the bare infinitive of a gerund is an action noun or not. I hope this explanation helps.

I have understood your point but if I replace the word " whip" with the word "kill" and sentence goes as --
The boy was punished for the kill of his classmate.
And I don't find any grave error in the sentence. It seems OK. It might depend on word itself I suppose. Your help in needed on this.

Neha

Dear Neha,

I don't agree with everything sterling19 has said here.

1) all gerunds act as nouns always, 100% of the time, regardless of whether they are preceded by the word "the"
2) the infinitive includes the word "to" and always acts a noun, 100% of the time; it never takes the word "the"
3) the infinitive-form of a verb (very different from #2!) always excludes the word "to" and always is a verb, for example, a present tense verb or an imperative verb
4) if a gerund has an article ("a", "an", or "the"), then it is a complex gerund, whereas a gerund without an article is a simple gerund. In most context, the meaning is exactly the same and the distinction doesn't matter at all. The big difference is in parallelism. A complex gerund can be in parallel with an ordinary action noun, but a simple gerund can't ever be in parallel with a noun. The only place the distinction matters is in parallelism.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hi mike

Can you please explain the gerund structure in this sentence? i thought it was a parallelism issue. Thanks

Diesel engines burn as much as 30% less fuel than gasoline engines of comparable size, as well as emitting far less carbon dioxide gas and far fewer of the other gasses that have been implicated in global warming.

A. of comparable size , as well as emitting far less carbon dioxide gas and far fewer of the other gasses that have

B. of comparable size, as well as emit far less carbon dioxide gas and far fewer of the other gasses having

C. of comparable size, and also they emit far fewer carbon dioxide and other gasses that have

D. that have a comparable size, and also they emit far fewer of the other gasses having

E. that have a comparable size, as well as emitting far fewer of the other gasses having

Dear zeeasl
I'm happy to respond. This is from GMAT Prep, and as with many official questions, this one has several things going on at once. Actually, this is a slight different version that the version which which I am familiar. Here's the question I have seen:

Standard Version
Diesel engines burn as much as 30 percent less fuel than gasoline engines of comparable size, as well as emitting far less carbon dioxide gas and far fewer of the other gases that have been implicated in global warming.
(A) of comparable size, as well as emitting far less carbon dioxide gas and far fewer of the other gases that have
(B) of comparable size, as well as emit far less carbon dioxide gas and far fewer of the other gases having
(C) of comparable size, and also they emit far fewer carbon dioxide and other gases that have
(D) that have a comparable size, and also they emit far less carbon dioxide gas and other gases that have
(E) that have a comparable size, as well as emitting far fewer carbon dioxide and other gases having

Something is funny about choice (D) & (E) in the version you cite, because carbon dioxide is not mentioned at all.

Split #1: "of comparable size" vs. "that have a comparable size" --- a false split, as both are 100% correct

Split #2a: "carbon dioxide" is not countable, so cannot take "fewer" --- choice (C) in your version, and choices (C) & (E) in the standard version make this mistake.
Split #2b: "other gases" are countable and need "fewer," not "less." Choice (D) in the standard version makes this mistake.

Split 3: no choice in the standard version has this problem, but in the version you cite, choice (D) & (E) are totally illogical: they refer to "other gases" without specifying---other than what? By omitting the reference to "carbon dioxide," the word "other" becomes 100% illogical.

That leaves (B) & (A). Choice (B) has the awkward participle ending...
... far fewer of the other gases having been implicated in global warming.
This has strange and different meaning from what is intended. It's not clear this phrasing has any well-defined meaning. This is definitely wrong.

Well, that just leaves (A), the OA of the official question. This is tricky --- "as well as" is not official a parallelism marker. If I say:
A and B like this book. ==> plural subject, two items in parallel.
by contrast, if I say
A as well as B likes this book. ===> there, we have a singular subject, A, and B is simply part of a modifying additive phrase. See:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2014/compound-s ... e-phrases/

In this GMAT Prep SC sentence, to modify the main verb "burn," we have the modifying structure "as well as" + [gerund]----"as well as emitting." It's NOT parallelism, because "as well as" is NOT a parallelism marker. Choice (A) is 100% correct.

Does all this make sense?
Mike