Judge Bonham denied a motion to allow members of the jury to go home a

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.

Why is the use of "instead of" unidiomatic in this case ?

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:)

A few doubts in the explanation:
(i) why is 'rather than' preferred over 'instead of' in this case? I understand that 'instead of' shows substitution, while 'rather than' shows preference. Here what suits better, as the judge actually did the substitution
(ii) in (E), "to allow" is parallel to "be confined" right? I am not able grasp that! Would be great if you could explain it a bit more.
(iii) why do we necessarily have to use infinitive form after 'instead of'?

Please do let me know where am I going wrong.

Isn't "that" necessary at the beginning of the underlined part. Option choice (E) seems to imply that the Judge denied the motion SO THAT "members of the jury can go home ...",
but "members of the jury can go home ..." is part of the motion which "the Judge denied".

Have gone wrong somewhere in my reasoning?

Isn't "that" necessary at the beginning of the underlined part. Option choice (E) seems to imply that the Judge denied the motion SO THAT "members of the jury can go home ...",
but "members of the jury can go home ..." is part of the motion which "the Judge denied".

Have gone wrong somewhere in my reasoning?

Hello, oldmonk1. The subjunctive verb tense can take either a that form or a bare infinitive form. Both of the following sentences would be correct, for example:

1) The law requires that people wear shoes in public buildings.

2) The law requires people to wear shoes in public buildings.

In the question at hand, answer choice (E) adopts the second structure. At its heart, the comparison (indeed, the entire sentence) is little more than the following:

Judge Bonham denied a motion to allow [something] rather than [to] be confined [somewhere].

Of course, a motion can be thought of as a so-called bossy word such as request, thereby triggering the use of the subjunctive. As vv65 noted above, a question that is so heavily dependent on idiomatic usage is unlikely to show up on the modern exam. I would just take note of what you have learned here and move on.

Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

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

Hi AjiteshArun ,

I am unable to comprehend the meaning of the sentence.

I have inferred that if the judge denied the motion , he must be against the motion.

Based on this inference , my assumption is that the judge must be against something that is why he is denying the motion.
But I am little confused between the below two:
1. Whether the judge was against allowing the jury members to go home
or
2. Whether he was against confining the jury members in a hotel

Thanks for your help!

Judge Bonham denied [a motion to allow members of the jury to {go home at the end of each day} rather than {be confined to a hotel}].