Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 19:00 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 19:00
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
smashingpumpkins
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Last visit: 06 Apr 2017
Posts: 83
Own Kudos:
1,985
 [107]
Given Kudos: 4
Posts: 83
Kudos: 1,985
 [107]
7
Kudos
Add Kudos
100
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
daagh
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Last visit: 16 Oct 2020
Posts: 5,264
Own Kudos:
42,417
 [21]
Given Kudos: 422
Status: enjoying
Location: India
WE:Education (Education)
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 5,264
Kudos: 42,417
 [21]
15
Kudos
Add Kudos
6
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
bigoyal
Joined: 03 Jun 2009
Last visit: 08 Jul 2011
Posts: 577
Own Kudos:
2,394
 [8]
Given Kudos: 56
Location: New Delhi
Concentration: IT Consultancy
WE 1: 5.5 yrs in IT
Posts: 577
Kudos: 2,394
 [8]
5
Kudos
Add Kudos
3
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
avatar
shweta5
Joined: 18 May 2019
Last visit: 11 Feb 2020
Posts: 18
Own Kudos:
1
 [1]
Given Kudos: 215
Posts: 18
Kudos: 1
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
daagh
In the exam hall, it might be a good means to go about this question this way; look at who could be uncovered. The workers could be uncovered and not the jobs

IN A and D- ‘jobs who’ otherwise could be uncovered for months. In C and E ‘jobs that’ otherwise could be uncovered for months. In A and D, ' jobs who' is horrible, in addition. So all the four are out.

B is the only choice that skillfully dodges the modification trap by using the co-ordinate conjunction ‘and’, splitting the sentence.


Hi Daagh sir,

I didn't understand ''jobs that'' part in the explanation, why it is wrong?
Please help.

Thanks.
User avatar
daagh
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Last visit: 16 Oct 2020
Posts: 5,264
Own Kudos:
42,417
 [3]
Given Kudos: 422
Status: enjoying
Location: India
WE:Education (Education)
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 5,264
Kudos: 42,417
 [3]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
shweta
What does that refer to?we do not cover jobs with insurance; it is theworkers. Am I right? jobs that refers to job that will be uncverd for months. This is not the intent.
avatar
Rinng0
Joined: 13 Aug 2013
Last visit: 16 Jul 2024
Posts: 24
Own Kudos:
17
 [1]
Given Kudos: 89
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
Posts: 24
Kudos: 17
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
smashingpumpkins
The proposed health care bill would increase government regulation of health insurance, establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers changing jobs who otherwise could be uncovered for months.


(A) establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers changing jobs who

(B) establishing standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers who are changing jobs and

(C) to establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers who change jobs that

(D) for establishing standards that would guarantee wider access for people with past health problems and workers changing jobs who

(E) for the establishment of standards that would guarantee wider access for people with past health problems and workers who are changing jobs that

Hi,

Can you help me to understand why option D is incorrect. Is it because of incorrect idioms(for establishing and access for)?
Also, in option A and D, can "who" modify "workers" instead of "jobs"?

Thanks,
User avatar
Harry8014
Joined: 20 Apr 2020
Last visit: 03 May 2022
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 211
Location: India
GMAT 1: 650 Q44 V35
GPA: 3.93
GMAT 1: 650 Q44 V35
Posts: 14
Kudos: 1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
IMO. We need +ing modifier after comma to show results of increase government regulation
Leaving us with B as correct answer.
User avatar
mSKR
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Last visit: 10 Mar 2024
Posts: 1,290
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
Posts: 1,290
Kudos: 937
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi AndrewN AjiteshArun sirs

I think this is one of the toughest question. Much has not been discussed on this yet.
Usually during my analysis , I end up in reaching at correct option with one or the other reason. But in this question , I was left with open ends in more than one option , thus end up in choosing wrong answer.

As I end up in choosing wrong option even after my detailed analysis , I think I still lack some skill that was needed in this question .Please check my analysis.
( Please reply at your convenience time even later is ok . But kindly check the analysis part)

Quote:
The proposed health care bill would increase government regulation of health insurance, establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers changing jobs who otherwise could be uncovered for months.

The meaning I understood : (If I need to express in my words)

The proposed health care bill would increase government regulation of health insurance to establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people xyz and to workers who are changing jobs as otherwise these workers could be uncovered for months.
Red indicates the variation at these words for each option to select/reject.


Quote:
(A) establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers changing jobs who
I rejected A because I could not make establish in parallel with increase
Kept on hold: to workers changing jobs who
At this point I had question in mind: Is it must for relative pronouns to be next to subject it is modifying? As I was not 100% confident on this , I moved on as I had rejected A due to some other major factor.
4 more to go

Quote:
(B) establishing standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers who are changing jobs and
Establishing – better as verb+ing modifier - accepted
Workers who are better- accepted

And ? looking for parallelism _ need analysis
Meaning wise: parallel to what?
Are changing jobs || could be uncovered ?
It seems could be uncovered make more sense with workers after changing jobs by them ( some result of changing job) .
But still not so satisfying with presence of and
As I had no other strong reason to reject B, so I kept on hold B


Quote:
(C) to establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers who change jobs that

Why comma before to ? -it would have been better without comma as I expected sentence in my words. - kept on hold to look for other error if any.
Jobs that could be uncovered for months? Maybe it meant jobs that have health benefits covered?
Could it be meaning wise: Health standards to jobs
Establish standards that would guarantee wider access to workers who change jobs in which standards would remain uncovered for months? Does it mean some jobs have standards and some don’t have ? But we were talking about workers and people and why suddenly jump off to jump. It may not be correct sentence then.
Less priority to choose this answer in presence of B. So reject C .


Quote:
(D) for establishing standards that would guarantee wider access for people with past health problems and workers changing jobs who
Comma + For ( suddenly FANBOYS come up in mind)- i don't see any error here
Idiom is : access to/not access for – keep it on hold
Can it be for people and (for) workers --> still can not reject on this basis alone ---keep on hold
Workers changing jobs who? Not easy to understand as meaning is not clear and not nicely written.
Because workers and people are parallel so the discussion is about workers not about jobs. So workers changing jobs should mean workers who are changing jobs and as a result they would remain uncovered
I really can’t make sense out of these 3 words (Workers changing jobs) without any no comma in between.
I rejected D in presence of B.

Quote:
(E) for the establishment of standards that would guarantee wider access for people with past health problems and workers who are changing jobs that
Again for + comma – lovely fan boys :i don't see any error here
Establishment is not better than establish- let’s keep on hold
For people and( for) workers – not wrong
Jobs that ? – not so good but who are changing jobs is relative pronoun phrase , then that can still make sense to connect with workers. I have seen that jumping over other words , so here that should be fine .
can that refers to workers - yes of course

In view of above pending points
I shortlisted B and E
But finally gave my thumbs up to E :cry: and rejected B because of “and otherwise “.


Please give your comments on my analysis and thinking process of this question. ( this is usually how I tackle SC questions)
I think I was close in B and E but maybe due to lack of some skill I missed B option. Please guide what have I missed and how could I have handled this confusion.

Hope this post won't take much of your time. :please: :please: sorry for the long post
User avatar
ravigupta2912
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 26 May 2019
Last visit: 16 Feb 2025
Posts: 726
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 84
Location: India
GMAT 1: 650 Q46 V34
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V40
GPA: 2.58
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
Products:
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mSKR
Hi AndrewN AjiteshArun sirs

I think this is one of the toughest question. Much has not been discussed on this yet.
Usually during my analysis , I end up in reaching at correct option with one or the other reason. But in this question , I was left with open ends in more than one option , thus end up in choosing wrong answer.

As I end up in choosing wrong option even after my detailed analysis , I think I still lack some skill that was needed in this question .Please check my analysis.
( Please reply at your convenience time even later is ok . But kindly check the analysis part)

Quote:
The proposed health care bill would increase government regulation of health insurance, establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers changing jobs who otherwise could be uncovered for months.

The meaning I understood : (If I need to express in my words)

The proposed health care bill would increase government regulation of health insurance to establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people xyz and to workers who are changing jobs as otherwise these workers could be uncovered for months.
Red indicates the variation at these words for each option to select/reject.


Quote:
(A) establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers changing jobs who
I rejected A because I could not make establish in parallel with increase
Kept on hold: to workers changing jobs who
At this point I had question in mind: Is it must for relative pronouns to be next to subject it is modifying? As I was not 100% confident on this , I moved on as I had rejected A due to some other major factor.
4 more to go

Quote:
(B) establishing standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers who are changing jobs and
Establishing – better as verb+ing modifier - accepted
Workers who are better- accepted

And ? looking for parallelism _ need analysis
Meaning wise: parallel to what?
Are changing jobs || could be uncovered ?
It seems could be uncovered make more sense with workers after changing jobs by them ( some result of changing job) .
But still not so satisfying with presence of and
As I had no other strong reason to reject B, so I kept on hold B


Quote:
(C) to establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers who change jobs that

Why comma before to ? -it would have been better without comma as I expected sentence in my words. - kept on hold to look for other error if any.
Jobs that could be uncovered for months? Maybe it meant jobs that have health benefits covered?
Could it be meaning wise: Health standards to jobs
Establish standards that would guarantee wider access to workers who change jobs in which standards would remain uncovered for months? Does it mean some jobs have standards and some don’t have ? But we were talking about workers and people and why suddenly jump off to jump. It may not be correct sentence then.
Less priority to choose this answer in presence of B. So reject C .


Quote:
(D) for establishing standards that would guarantee wider access for people with past health problems and workers changing jobs who
Comma + For ( suddenly FANBOYS come up in mind)- i don't see any error here
Idiom is : access to/not access for – keep it on hold
Can it be for people and (for) workers --> still can not reject on this basis alone ---keep on hold
Workers changing jobs who? Not easy to understand as meaning is not clear and not nicely written.
Because workers and people are parallel so the discussion is about workers not about jobs. So workers changing jobs should mean workers who are changing jobs and as a result they would remain uncovered
I really can’t make sense out of these 3 words (Workers changing jobs) without any no comma in between.
I rejected D in presence of B.

Quote:
(E) for the establishment of standards that would guarantee wider access for people with past health problems and workers who are changing jobs that
Again for + comma – lovely fan boys :i don't see any error here
Establishment is not better than establish- let’s keep on hold
For people and( for) workers – not wrong
Jobs that ? – not so good but who are changing jobs is relative pronoun phrase , then that can still make sense to connect with workers. I have seen that jumping over other words , so here that should be fine .
can that refers to workers - yes of course

In view of above pending points
I shortlisted B and E
But finally gave my thumbs up to E :cry: and rejected B because of “and otherwise “.


Please give your comments on my analysis and thinking process of this question. ( this is usually how I tackle SC questions)
I think I was close in B and E but maybe due to lack of some skill I missed B option. Please guide what have I missed and how could I have handled this confusion.

Hope this post won't take much of your time. :please: :please: sorry for the long post

Hi, in D, the FANBOYS construct is applied incorrect. There is no verb if you look more closely.

“For establishing standards that...” is a long gerund phrase with the gerund (verb acting as a noun) as “establishing standards” and relative clause beginning with “that” is acting as the “modifier of that gerund”. So where is the verb? Even if you think of this as a separate clause, it is a fragment for lack of a verb.

Moreover, the “for establishing standards” is unidiomatic in the context of the sentence. We need a present participle to modify the legislation and further describe it, which is what B does.

In B, you have two parallel actions:-

People who
A) are changing jobs
B) otherwise would be unable to..

B is the best of all options.

Posted from my mobile device
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,502
Own Kudos:
7,510
 [2]
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,502
Kudos: 7,510
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mSKR
Hi AndrewN AjiteshArun sirs

I think this is one of the toughest question. Much has not been discussed on this yet.
Usually during my analysis , I end up in reaching at correct option with one or the other reason. But in this question , I was left with open ends in more than one option , thus end up in choosing wrong answer.

As I end up in choosing wrong option even after my detailed analysis , I think I still lack some skill that was needed in this question .Please check my analysis.
( Please reply at your convenience time even later is ok . But kindly check the analysis part)

Quote:
The proposed health care bill would increase government regulation of health insurance, establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers changing jobs who otherwise could be uncovered for months.

The meaning I understood : (If I need to express in my words)

The proposed health care bill would increase government regulation of health insurance to establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people xyz and to workers who are changing jobs as otherwise these workers could be uncovered for months.
Red indicates the variation at these words for each option to select/reject.


Quote:
(A) establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers changing jobs who
I rejected A because I could not make establish in parallel with increase
Kept on hold: to workers changing jobs who
At this point I had question in mind: Is it must for relative pronouns to be next to subject it is modifying? As I was not 100% confident on this , I moved on as I had rejected A due to some other major factor.
4 more to go

Quote:
(B) establishing standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers who are changing jobs and
Establishing – better as verb+ing modifier - accepted
Workers who are better- accepted

And ? looking for parallelism _ need analysis
Meaning wise: parallel to what?
Are changing jobs || could be uncovered ?
It seems could be uncovered make more sense with workers after changing jobs by them ( some result of changing job) .
But still not so satisfying with presence of and
As I had no other strong reason to reject B, so I kept on hold B


Quote:
(C) to establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers who change jobs that

Why comma before to ? -it would have been better without comma as I expected sentence in my words. - kept on hold to look for other error if any.
Jobs that could be uncovered for months? Maybe it meant jobs that have health benefits covered?
Could it be meaning wise: Health standards to jobs
Establish standards that would guarantee wider access to workers who change jobs in which standards would remain uncovered for months? Does it mean some jobs have standards and some don’t have ? But we were talking about workers and people and why suddenly jump off to jump. It may not be correct sentence then.
Less priority to choose this answer in presence of B. So reject C .


Quote:
(D) for establishing standards that would guarantee wider access for people with past health problems and workers changing jobs who
Comma + For ( suddenly FANBOYS come up in mind)- i don't see any error here
Idiom is : access to/not access for – keep it on hold
Can it be for people and (for) workers --> still can not reject on this basis alone ---keep on hold
Workers changing jobs who? Not easy to understand as meaning is not clear and not nicely written.
Because workers and people are parallel so the discussion is about workers not about jobs. So workers changing jobs should mean workers who are changing jobs and as a result they would remain uncovered
I really can’t make sense out of these 3 words (Workers changing jobs) without any no comma in between.
I rejected D in presence of B.

Quote:
(E) for the establishment of standards that would guarantee wider access for people with past health problems and workers who are changing jobs that
Again for + comma – lovely fan boys :i don't see any error here
Establishment is not better than establish- let’s keep on hold
For people and( for) workers – not wrong
Jobs that ? – not so good but who are changing jobs is relative pronoun phrase , then that can still make sense to connect with workers. I have seen that jumping over other words , so here that should be fine .
can that refers to workers - yes of course

In view of above pending points
I shortlisted B and E
But finally gave my thumbs up to E :cry: and rejected B because of “and otherwise “.


Please give your comments on my analysis and thinking process of this question. ( this is usually how I tackle SC questions)
I think I was close in B and E but maybe due to lack of some skill I missed B option. Please guide what have I missed and how could I have handled this confusion.

Hope this post won't take much of your time. :please: :please: sorry for the long post
Hello, mSKR. I agree with what ravigupta2912 has written above. For my part, I think your approach seems overwrought. Although I had not thought to focus on the end of the underlined portion, as daagh outlined in his post, the beginning provides enough for us to comfortably land on (B). My thoughts below.

smashingpumpkins
The proposed health care bill would increase government regulation of health insurance, establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers changing jobs who otherwise could be uncovered for months.


(A) establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers changing jobs who
I read establish as the second action in a parallel series: [would] increase, establish, and [something else]. The problem is that that third action never shows up. The entire infinitive phrase that fills in the latter part of the sentence, then, is missing the mark. We either need another action or an and to denote a two-part series of actions. This should be an easier elimination.

smashingpumpkins
(B) establishing standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers who are changing jobs and
The participle correctly comments on the clause prior to the comma. Then, the guarantee extends to two groups of people, those with past health problems and those who are changing jobs and otherwise could be uncovered for months. We happen to get a fork within the information pertaining to the latter group, but that is fine. In short, we have no compelling reason to go against this answer choice. Keep looking for other, more problematic options.

smashingpumpkins
(C) to establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers who change jobs that
You said it yourself, Why is there a comma before "to"? Answer: for no good reason at all. This is not to say that you will never see a comma before "to" in a correctly written sentence, but in this particular sentence, even if it is shorthand for in order to, its presence is unwarranted. This is enough to eliminate the answer choice. (No need to go further.)

smashingpumpkins
(D) for establishing standards that would guarantee wider access for people with past health problems and workers changing jobs who

(E) for the establishment of standards that would guarantee wider access for people with past health problems and workers who are changing jobs that
These latter options fall into the same category as the to in (C). There is no compelling reason to slide into for after the comma, since this is not usage in which the conjunction joins two independent clauses (more or less standing in for since). Compare the following truncated versions of the main clause:

(A) The bill would increase regulation, establish standards... [without third action]
(B) The bill would increase regulation, establishing standards...
(C) The bill would increase regulation, to establish standards... (would be better without the comma)
(D) The bill would increase regulation, for establishing standards... (again, the comma hampers the sentence)
(E) The bill would increase regulation, for the establishment of standards... (same as above)

This is about as far as I got with any of the answer choices before I read the rest of (B), felt fine about it, and chose it. When I say overwrought above, I think you are probably combing through each option, one by one, looking for whatever you can find, and you are getting lost in the process. I liken the task more to safe-cracking. You want to get in and get out, to walk away with what you came to get without standing around to admire the job. (See, I told you that to could follow a comma.) If you are unsure about a particular point, that is fine. Just look for others. But rarely will I go through each answer choice and weigh its pros and cons. It is more like I group answers, aiming to take out the worst of that subgroup until I am left with nothing but the best of each major group. I then compare and further narrow the pool of options until I am left with the best of the best. In this manner, I do not waste time or mental energy seeking to prove or disprove more than I have to.

I hope that helps. I know I did not touch on all points from your post, but that is just the point I am hoping to make.

- Andrew
avatar
BankerBro
avatar
Current Student
Joined: 17 Oct 2020
Last visit: 23 Dec 2023
Posts: 36
Own Kudos:
121
 [1]
Given Kudos: 37
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 620 Q48 V27
GMAT 2: 680 Q47 V37
GMAT 3: 690 Q49 V35
GPA: 3.3
WE:Corporate Finance (Retail Banking)
Products:
GMAT 3: 690 Q49 V35
Posts: 36
Kudos: 121
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ravigupta2912
mSKR
Hi AndrewN AjiteshArun sirs

I think this is one of the toughest question. Much has not been discussed on this yet.
Usually during my analysis , I end up in reaching at correct option with one or the other reason. But in this question , I was left with open ends in more than one option , thus end up in choosing wrong answer.

As I end up in choosing wrong option even after my detailed analysis , I think I still lack some skill that was needed in this question .Please check my analysis.
( Please reply at your convenience time even later is ok . But kindly check the analysis part)

Quote:
The proposed health care bill would increase government regulation of health insurance, establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers changing jobs who otherwise could be uncovered for months.

The meaning I understood : (If I need to express in my words)

The proposed health care bill would increase government regulation of health insurance to establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people xyz and to workers who are changing jobs as otherwise these workers could be uncovered for months.
Red indicates the variation at these words for each option to select/reject.


Quote:
(A) establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers changing jobs who
I rejected A because I could not make establish in parallel with increase
Kept on hold: to workers changing jobs who
At this point I had question in mind: Is it must for relative pronouns to be next to subject it is modifying? As I was not 100% confident on this , I moved on as I had rejected A due to some other major factor.
4 more to go

Quote:
(B) establishing standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers who are changing jobs and
Establishing – better as verb+ing modifier - accepted
Workers who are better- accepted

And ? looking for parallelism _ need analysis
Meaning wise: parallel to what?
Are changing jobs || could be uncovered ?
It seems could be uncovered make more sense with workers after changing jobs by them ( some result of changing job) .
But still not so satisfying with presence of and
As I had no other strong reason to reject B, so I kept on hold B


Quote:
(C) to establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers who change jobs that

Why comma before to ? -it would have been better without comma as I expected sentence in my words. - kept on hold to look for other error if any.
Jobs that could be uncovered for months? Maybe it meant jobs that have health benefits covered?
Could it be meaning wise: Health standards to jobs
Establish standards that would guarantee wider access to workers who change jobs in which standards would remain uncovered for months? Does it mean some jobs have standards and some don’t have ? But we were talking about workers and people and why suddenly jump off to jump. It may not be correct sentence then.
Less priority to choose this answer in presence of B. So reject C .


Quote:
(D) for establishing standards that would guarantee wider access for people with past health problems and workers changing jobs who
Comma + For ( suddenly FANBOYS come up in mind)- i don't see any error here
Idiom is : access to/not access for – keep it on hold
Can it be for people and (for) workers --> still can not reject on this basis alone ---keep on hold
Workers changing jobs who? Not easy to understand as meaning is not clear and not nicely written.
Because workers and people are parallel so the discussion is about workers not about jobs. So workers changing jobs should mean workers who are changing jobs and as a result they would remain uncovered
I really can’t make sense out of these 3 words (Workers changing jobs) without any no comma in between.
I rejected D in presence of B.

Quote:
(E) for the establishment of standards that would guarantee wider access for people with past health problems and workers who are changing jobs that
Again for + comma – lovely fan boys :i don't see any error here
Establishment is not better than establish- let’s keep on hold
For people and( for) workers – not wrong
Jobs that ? – not so good but who are changing jobs is relative pronoun phrase , then that can still make sense to connect with workers. I have seen that jumping over other words , so here that should be fine .
can that refers to workers - yes of course

In view of above pending points
I shortlisted B and E
But finally gave my thumbs up to E :cry: and rejected B because of “and otherwise “.


Please give your comments on my analysis and thinking process of this question. ( this is usually how I tackle SC questions)
I think I was close in B and E but maybe due to lack of some skill I missed B option. Please guide what have I missed and how could I have handled this confusion.

Hope this post won't take much of your time. :please: :please: sorry for the long post

Hi, in D, the FANBOYS construct is applied incorrect. There is no verb if you look more closely.

“For establishing standards that...” is a long gerund phrase with the gerund (verb acting as a noun) as “establishing standards” and relative clause beginning with “that” is acting as the “modifier of that gerund”. So where is the verb? Even if you think of this as a separate clause, it is a fragment for lack of a verb.

Moreover, the “for establishing standards” is unidiomatic in the context of the sentence. We need a present participle to modify the legislation and further describe it, which is what B does.

In B, you have two parallel actions:-

People who
A) are changing jobs
B) otherwise would be unable to..

B is the best of all options.

Posted from my mobile device

Hiii GMATNinja , GMATNinjaTwo , generis and BillyZ
Why "People who are changing jobs" is correct? The clause "are changing" indicates present progressive/continuous tense. It means that the health care bill will affect those who are in the middle of changing jobs at present. I mean those people are in process of changing their jobs at the time of writing this statement. Does it make sense here?
User avatar
gmatimothy
Joined: 18 Apr 2022
Last visit: 19 Dec 2022
Posts: 111
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 704
Location: United States
Posts: 111
Kudos: 9
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
smashingpumpkins
The proposed health care bill would increase government regulation of health insurance, establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers changing jobs who otherwise could be uncovered for months.


(A) establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers changing jobs who

"Jobs who" = wrong

(B) establishing standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers who are changing jobs and

CORRECT; "otherwise could be uncovered" correctly modifies the "workers"


(C) to establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers who change jobs that

"jobs that" = wrong, should modify the workers

(D) for establishing standards that would guarantee wider access for people with past health problems and workers changing jobs who

Same as (B)

(E) for the establishment of standards that would guarantee wider access for people with past health problems and workers who are changing jobs that

Same as (C)
User avatar
TanyaTanya20002
Joined: 28 Jun 2022
Last visit: 11 Dec 2022
Posts: 5
Given Kudos: 3
Posts: 5
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
pls explain how n option b, "and" makes sense?
User avatar
ExpertsGlobal5
User avatar
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,193
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 43
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,193
Kudos: 4,758
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TanyaTanya20002
pls explain how n option b, "and" makes sense?

Hello TanyaTanya20002,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, the first "and" joins the phrases "to people with past health problems" and "to workers who are changing jobs..." - the phrases that refer to the groups of people who are guaranteed "wider access".

The second "and" joins the phrases "are changing jobs" and "otherwise could be uncovered for months" - the phrases that refer to qualities of the "workers" who will be guaranteed "wider access".

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
User avatar
Raman109
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Last visit: 28 Jul 2025
Posts: 805
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 33
Posts: 805
Kudos: 170
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The proposed health care bill would increase government regulation of health insurance, establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers changing jobs who otherwise could be uncovered for months.

Option elimination -

(A) establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers changing jobs who - If we consider there are two ideas " would increase" and "would establish" we need "and." Moreover, who is used to refer to living things - better to be closer to workers.

(B) establishing standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers who are changing jobs and - perfect. Comma +ING is adverbial and completes the cause-effect relationship.

(C) to establish standards that would guarantee wider access to people with past health problems and to workers who change jobs that - after comma "to establish" is wrong. We are looking for a participle to complete the cause-effect relationship. Moreover, "that" refers back to "Jobs" and conveys a weird meaning that jobs otherwise could be uncovered for months. The intended meaning is workers who otherwise could be uncovered for months.

(D) for establishing standards that would guarantee wider access for people with past health problems and workers changing jobs who - after comma "for establishing" is wrong. We are looking for a participle to complete the cause-effect relationship. Moreover, who is used to refer to living things - better to be closer to workers.

(E) for the establishment of standards that would guarantee wider access for people with past health problems and workers who are changing jobs that - after comma "for the establishment" is wrong. We are looking for a participle to complete the cause-effect relationship. Moreover, "that" refers back to "Jobs" and conveys a weird meaning that jobs otherwise could be uncovered for months. The intended meaning is workers who otherwise could be uncovered for months.
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,835
Own Kudos:
Posts: 18,835
Kudos: 986
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
188 posts