Why OPtion "B" is wrong

Judge Bonham denied a motion to allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day instead of to confine them to a hotel.

(A) to allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day instead of to confine them to
(B) that would have allowed members of the jury to go home at the end of each day instead of confined to
(C) under which members of the jury are allowed to go home at the end of each day instead of confining them in
(D) that would allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day rather than confinement in
(E) to allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day rather than be confined to

GMATNinja

Hi GMATNinja,

As you said there are 25000 idioms, so dropping the idea of idiom difference in this question, can you please explain the meaning difference between A and E

A- Judge Bonham denied a motion to allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day instead of to confine them to a hotel.

In A- "to allow" could be parallel to "to confine", also them would be correctly referring to "members of the jury"
It is parallel, perfectly conveys the meaning (leaving the idiom issue aside).

In E- I am also not able to get what exactly is parallel. What is parallel to "be confined".
Also in E, "be confined" should refer to past participle, but why it should refer to past participle? According to the sentence, only the jury decision is in the past.

Please help me with the above queries. The meaning approach could be the best if you could explain the difference between these two sentences and how E contains parallelism.

Thanks & Regards
Siddharth

Request Expert Reply:
E says:
'Judge Bonham denied a motion for a PURPOSE'. Is it really? I did not find the actual feelings of the correct version!
The meaning what comes to my mind is:
Judge Bonham denied a motion THAT allows members of the jury to go home at the end of each day rather than be confined to a hotel.
Am I missing anything to comprehend the meaning of correct choice E, experts?

Please explain why B and D are not parallel

Let's first go through a bit of conceptual theory regarding the use of verb+ing words.

1. Just because an 'ing' is attached to a verb, it doesn't become a gerund. In fact, there are three forms of ing that one will come across in formal writing. The first is the present participle, (with or without a comma before). Such an "ing" word is always a modifier and never a gerund.

Here in this example, the use of allowing without a comma before modifies the motion and with a comma before 'ing' word modifies Judge Botham and his denial. In both cases, however, the present participle is a modifier.

2. To become a gerund the 'ing' word must act as a noun and will mostly be either the subject or object of a clause. If it is a subject, it will most probably start a clause or at least be a part of a noun phrase that will in sum be the subject. What is more important is that such a word or phrase will be immediately followed by a verb to corroborate that what you have before is indeed a subject. In some cases, there will be possessive adjectives before 'the' ing word or an article acting as an adjective. Since possessives and adjectives modify nouns, we can be sure that the following 'ing' word must be a gerund.
Example
Being addicted to drinks has ruined many a person. 'Being addicted' is a gerund and a noun phrase followed by its verb 'has ruined'.
Exercising is a good discipline if done regularly -- Here exercising is a gerund with its verb 'is'
An 'ing' gerund is a legal application in GMAT.
3. The third use of verb+ing is to use it as a part of a passive voice verb, considered legal in GMAT.
Example

He looked peeved when the inquiry committee was questioning him.

With this bit of theory in mind, one can find that the use of present participles is out of place in the context and hence wrong.

Now on to the official choices
Judge Bonham denied a motion to allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day instead of to confine them to a hotel.

(A) to allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day instead of to confine them to
(B) that would have allowed members of the jury to go home at the end of each day instead of confined to
(C) under which members of the jury are allowed to go home at the end of each day instead of confining them in
(D) that would allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day rather than confinement in
(E) to allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day rather than be confined to

First of all, let's ruthlessly reject choices A, B, and C for using the unidiomatic 'instead of'.

Between D and E, the infinitive 'to allow' pointedly indicates that the motion, yet to be approved then, had a definite purpose inherent in it, while in D 'that would allow' is more indicative than intentional. Therefore, E is the best.

VeritasKarishma Doesn't the use of infinitive in (E) result in ambiguity in the intended meaning?
(i) motion allowed members to go home
(ii) Judge rejected the motion so that jury could go home.

Please help me understand where am I going wrong!

Judge Bonham denied a motion to allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day instead of to confine them to a hotel.


(A) to allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day instead of to confine them to
(B) that would have allowed members of the jury to go home at the end of each day instead of confined to
(C) under which members of the jury are allowed to go home at the end of each day instead of confining them in
(D) that would allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day rather than confinement in
(E) to allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day rather than be confined to

I can share my thoughts how I handle this question.



Instead of
ok parallel elements on both side of market: logical + grammatical
A. makes perfect grammatical but logical it is nonsensical

Judge Bonham denied a motion to allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day instead of to confine them to a hotel.
JB denied a motion to allow X to go home vs to confine ?
Hold on: allow vs confine
OR
go home vs confine

Here we go: so I need to make it parallel with to go home not with to allow.
A option makes ambiguity.
meaning1: correct meaning
meaning2: denied a motion to allow instead of to confine them to hotel

2nd reason:rather than vs instead of
Rather than shows preference. This expression is generally used in 'parallel' structures. e.g. - with two nouns, adjectives, adverbs, infinitives or -ing forms.
Instead of is not usually followed by an infinitive.
Instead of is only a preposition and can introduce only a phrase i.e no verb.


For B, C and D:Reject because of wrong parallel elements and wrong meaningwise
(B) that would have allowed members of the jury to go home at the end of each day instead of confined to
(C) under which members of the jury are allowed to go home at the end of each day instead of confining them in
(D) that would allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day rather than confinement in

(E) to allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day rather than
you can read E as:
to allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day
rather than
to allow members of the jury to be confined to a hotel

meaning wise-make sense
grammatically- no wrong

hence E wins over other options

I hope it helps . Let's see what Experts have to say:)