Bunuel
In a recent policy shift, the management of the county's public senior-citizen facilities has cut staff hours as means
to greater economic sustainability and has lowered the percentage of new residents it will accept whose only source of income is Social Security.
A. to greater economic sustainability and has lowered
B. to greater sustainability economically and has lowered
C. of greater economic sustainability and lowering
D. of greater sustainability economically and has lowered
E. for greater economic sustainability and the lowering of
Magoosh Official Explanation:
“Means for” is always wrong, so (E) is out. Here we are discussing cutting staff hours vs. greater economic sustainability. We don’t want to suggest that cutting staff hours is a kind of greater economic sustainability. Rather, cutting staff hours is not desirable in and of itself, but it’s a step the senior-citizen facilities are taking to reach their intended goal of greater economic sustainability. Therefore, in this context, “means to” is correct and “means of” is incorrect. That narrows choices down to (A) and (B).
Notice, also, the verbs “has cut” and “has lowered”/”lowering” must be in parallel, so “has lowered” is correct —- also (A) and (B) only. The difference between them is another tricky split I have discussed
in this post. The phrase “greater economic sustainability” tells us specifically: what kind of sustainability? Very specifically, they want to stay financially afloat: that’s economic sustainability. By contrast, “greater sustainability economically” means they want broader sustainability in general (financial, emotional, moral, spiritual, etc.) and they want to achieve this broad sustainability economically, that is to say, at low cost. In context, that’s wacky. Clearly, the word “economic”/”economically” is supposed to tell us the specific kind of sustainability, not to qualify that this broad open-ended sustainability should be achieved with cost-cutting measure.
Therefore, (A) is the best answer.