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 whoAt 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 goQuote:
(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
- acceptedWorkers 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
andAs 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 hereIdiom 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 holdWorkers 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 holdFor 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

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.

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.
B) otherwise would be unable to..
B is the best of all options.