stunn3r wrote:
Hey pqhai,
I have the same doubt that you answered in above post ..
I will try to make that question more clear ..
1. leader denied the motion to allow members to go home .. means there was a meeting going on about a motion but everybody was bored and wanted to go home but they could've gone home only of motion is accepted or denied, so leader denied the motion so that everyone could go home and kill the boredom
2. leader denied the motion that allowed members to go home .. means there was a meeting going on about a motion, and according to this motion people get bored after casting their votes and would like if they are allowed to go after they have voted, and leader denied this motion(request) of members ..
clearly according to my reasoning anything with a "to" should not be the answer ..
I know all the "instead of" story and i know you're right about that but just want to know if two sentence were same and only difference were of "to" and "that", what would've been the right answer ?
Dear
stunn3r,
If you don't mind, I'll jump in here.
I accept your interpretation of sentence #2, although for idiomatic reasons, it's awkward. I disagree about sentence #1: there's a subtle idiom at play. Here's the sentence:
The majority leader denied a motion to allow members of the house to go home ...
You are interpreting this as a simple
infinitive of purpose (
A did P to do Q) --- in other words, you are reading this as:
The majority leader denied a motion in order to allow members of the house to go home ....
or
The majority leader denied a motion for the purpose of allowing members of the house to go home ...
These interpretations are incorrect. You see, in the vast majority of cases, in this structure
[subject][verb][infinitive], the infinitive is an
infinitive of purpose --- that is, it shows the purpose, the intention, of the action of the verb. The only time it is absolutely NOT an infinitive of purpose is when there's another idiom present that demands an infinitive ---
the idiom requirement always trumps the infinitive of purpose. Here's a blog on verbs that idiomatically require the infinitive:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/verbs-that ... -the-gmat/This sentence has another such idiom, a much rarer idiom, but one that could show up on the GMAT. In a legal context or a formal meeting, a "
motion" is a formal suggestion. Typically, in a parliamentary format, one person would make a "motion", then if another person "
seconds" the motion, that is enough force a full vote on the motion --- if the body votes in favor of the motion, then the motion "
carries", though in some contexts, some leader may have the executive power to veto a motion that has carried, as seems to be the case here. The green words are important idiomatic words to know about this context. Within this context, what the motion suggests, the content of the motion, is idiomatically expressed as an infinitive ---- thus, "
a motion to allow members of the house to go home" idiomatically means that the content of the motion was "
members should be allowed to go home". Once again, because there's an idiom involving an infinitive, that
always take precedence, which is how we
absolutely know this infinitive cannot be an infinitive of purpose.
This is precisely why your sentence #2 is awkward --- the correct idiom for expressing the content of a parliamentary motion is "
a motion to allow X", not "
a motion that allows X". The latter phrasing makes clear what you are trying to say, but it is unidiomatic.
Does all this make sense?
Mike
close
27 Sep 2013, 10:33
