priyanshu14 wrote:
Bunuel wrote:
priyanshu14 wrote:
Dear Team,
I am not convinced why option E is wrong?
I request for detailed explanation
bb generis GMATNinja egmat EMPOWERgmatVerbalSeveral deatiled expanations are given on previous THREE pages of discussion.
Hope it helps.
Dear
BunuelThanks for revert. I have gone through all previous explanation. It is mentioned that "laws to require" is unidiomatic. This doesn't convince me. I request if you can share detailed explanation on the same.
Thanks in advance.
priyanshu14 , a number of other decision points exist.
You are focused on "laws to require," though.
Why are you not convinced?
Explain your reasoning, please?
Sources?
Argue your case.
HERE.
"Laws to require" cannot be used in this context.
We cannot talk about the
content of the already-passed law with the words "to require."
We can talk about
-- a law that requires
-- a law requiring
We can say that the purpose of a law is to require something.
But the content of an
extant law cannot be described with "to require."
-- Doing so makes it sound as though the content is not yet in force.
Last week shrimpers were talking about laws with which they complied.
Those laws are laws THAT require X, Y, and Z.
They are laws requiring X, Y, and Z.
The content of the law requires something right now.
The content of the law does not "to require" something.
The law's content THAT requires something...
Reduce the relative clause: The law's content requiring something...
A law TO require something has not yet been passed.
If we want laws TO require A, B, and C, then we must write them.
• We should pass a law to require people who have their finger on a nuclear trigger to undergo routine psychiatric checkups.
• I hope that the legislature enacts a law to require skiers to wear avalanche signals.
• The wingnuts wanted to pass a law to require that schoolchildren be prevented from reading
The Scarlet Letter.The shrimpers did not comply a week ago with laws TO require XYZ.