A very informative post. However, I would like to discuss some more points in your statements:
[1] Difference between To-Inf and Ving: You say that "Always choose "to do X"" from the example:
"Warning that computers in the United States are not secure, the National Academy of Sciences has urged the nation to revamp computer security procedures, institute new emergency response teams, creating a special nongovernment organization
to take charge of computer security planning.
- You reason that "Some grammar experts will argue that both are OK – but on the GMAT, we at GMAT Pill know that answer choice (E) is the one to pick".
- Well, you should understand the underlying cause. That is, GMAT test American English rather than British English. In American English, there is a trend (I say a trend because in TOEFL Test, they have a similar motive) that to express clearly the
purpose, "To-Inf" is straightforward and correct. The term "For + Ving" is considered WRONG.
With such awareness, look back at all problems, you see there is a problem between "To + Inf" and "
For + Ving" (rather than "To-Inf" and "Ving", and most of the cases, "To-Inf" is used)
[2] You should pay particular attention to the following examples that you raise:
"A new study suggests that the conversational pace of everyday life may be so brisk
it hampers the ability of some children for distinguishing discrete sounds and words and, the result is to make sense of speech."
The point to remember here is NOT the difference between To-Inf and V-ing, RATHER, it is the idiom phrase "an ability TO DO sth". With such, test takers do not have to pay too much concern in this case because the word "ability" in ALL cases should be accompanied by "to-inf". Every dictionary guarantees that, check it yourself.
Takeaway: DO NOT just pay attention to "To-Inf" or "V-ing". Look at what noun/ phrase/ clause it modifies.
[3] You say that when "To-inf" is absent, “that does X” should be chosen over “for doing X”, and you give the following example:
"In a blow to those
who still harbored the illusion that E-mail exchanges are private, a watchdog group recently uncovered a trick for enabling an interloper to rig an E-mail message so that this person will be privy to any comments that a recipient had added as the message is forwarded to others or sent back and forth."
And by your reason, choice [D]: "still harboring the illusion that E-mail exchange are private , a watchdog group recently
uncovered a trick that enables an interloper to rig an E-mail message so that this person will be privy to any comments that a recipient might add"
is
CHOSEN OVER choice "who had still been harboring the illusion that E-mail exchanges are private, a watchdog group recently
uncovered a trick for enabling an interloper to rig an E-mail message so that this person was privy to any comments that a recipient might have added."
I am afraid this is not the REAL point and it just makes difficult for others to understand.The structure "To-Inf" is always used to reflect how sb/sth achieve sth. There are two cases:
A. "To-Inf" is accompanied by the noun/ noun phrase to reflect that that noun/ noun phrase is a means to obtain something. Ex: He has the ability to sing.
Mary did not have any motive to do that.
OR
B. "To-Inf" reflects the purpose of the whole action of a clause. Ex: I come to university to broaden my knowledge.
John drives slowly to avoid accident (= John drives slowly SO THAT he can avoid accident = John drives slowly IN ORDER TO avoid accident).
OR
C. There is a mixed circumstances when either understanding is reasonable: Ex: She uses the knife to cut food. [Knife is a tools (A), or how the result of "cutting food" is obtained? It is due to the fact that "she uses the knife" (B)]
There is a clear DIFFERENCE between A and B: In A, "To-Inf" directly modifies the noun and noun phrase, NOT the whole clause. You can clearly see such literal meaning.
In B, "To-Inf" modifies the entirely clause (in this aspect, it is equivalent to "so that" clause). You can see that if you attach "To-Inf" to the noun "university", it is meaningless because the result that I want to achieve, namely "broadening knowledge", does not stem from "university" but roots directly from the fact that "I come to university". Literally, "broadening my knowledge" results from the fact that I come to university RATHER than from the university itself. (I can come to college to broaden my knowledge, so the place does not result in the benefit but rather, what I mean is, the action of my coming to that place).
With such differences in mind, look back at the example:
"In a blow to those
who still harbored the illusion that E-mail exchanges are private, a watchdog group recently uncovered a trick for enabling an interloper to rig an E-mail message so that this person will be privy to any comments that a recipient had added as the message is forwarded to others or sent back and forth."
We just clarify the sentence: "a watchdog group recently uncovered a trick for enabling an interloper to rig an E-mail message so that this person will be privy to any comments"
-
Coincidentally, if we apply "To-Inf" here, we will have "a watchdog group recently uncovered a trick TO ENABLE..." and the circumstance lies in C, meaning that we can understand
"a trick" is a means to enable an interloper to rig an email message OR
the activity of uncovering a trick by a watchdog group enables an interloper to rig an email message.- However, when we you "that", you clearly see that in the defining clause (with NO commas) in the option [D]: "a watchdog group recently
uncovered a trick that enables an interloper to rig an E-mail message", the meaning is that the whole phrase "enable an interloper..." modifies directly for the word "trick". Thus, the sentence's
TRUE meaning is that if we use "To-Inf", the meaning will fall into circumstance A (modifying the noun/noun phrase), neither B nor C.
- So be careful: it is NOT the absence of "To-Inf" and you choose "That" over "V-ing", but it ALL rests on the meaning. However, the outcome is coincidental with what you claim because all in all, "V-ing" is least preferred, and because there is no "To-Inf", people have a tendency to look for something DIFFERENT from "V-ing".
The explanations above are clear in your many examples.
[4] You also push its to the extent that GMAC also accepts "V-ing" instead of "To-Inf" by citing the examples:
1) “Stressing the arts is a method for achieving greater economic development” is OK
2) “Stressing the arts is a method to achieve greater economic development” can also be OK.And you claim that
"The fact that GMAC uses (1) instead of (2) does not necessarily mean (2) is wrong. Quite the contrary, in fact – as we have noted in all the previous examples above"- I'm afraid I TOTALLY disagree with this point because you are making it more difficult for people to understand.
- If you reason that "For-Ving" is preferred although "To-inf" is perfect in meaning and thus my explanation in
[3] is faulty. You will make a specious claim.
This case are
NOT contrary to the point I have made because it does not lie in the difference between "To-Inf" and "V-ing" any more but rather, the word "method". More specifically, this case is the
[2] that I have presented.
Checking in all available dictionaries and you will find the following idioms:
- A method OF doing sth
- A method FOR doing sth.
However, "FOR" is considered RIGHT and frequently used and "OF" appears much less often. The safest way is to use "a method FOR doing sth"
You can also look up at Manhattan The Sentence Correction Guide, 4th edition, page 141 (page 135 in file pdf). There is an exact sentence clarifying the right use of "a method FOR doing sth".
[5] Because you miss that point, the following explanation in the example is, to me, UNREASONABLE:
"New genetic evidence-together with recent studies of elephants' skeletons, tusks, and other anatomical features-//provide compelling support for classifying//Africa's forest elephants and its savanna elephants as separate species."
You CLAIM that :
"Idiomatically, you provide support TO someone or some group or organization. You can’t provide support to a verb."I am afraid that you miss the whole point. From all your available dictionaries, you may find the structures for provide:
- Provide somebody WITH something (The object "somebody" receives "something")
- Provide something FOR Noun/ Gerund Phrase:
a) Provide something FOR somebody (The object "something" is given to "somebody")
b) Provide something FOR doing something (The object "something" is given to facilitate the performing of the second "something")
With such look up, it is completely clear that even if there is a sentence: "provide support
TO someone or some group or organization", that sentence is
WRONG!
Similar explanations for the example of PENCHAT:
"You have a penchant
for learning" - idiomatically correct because it is GRAMMATICALLY correct. A penchant FOR (doing) sth = A liking FOR (doing) sth
You have a penchant
to learn - not idiomatically correct because it is UNGRAMMATICALLY correct. No need to discuss such STRANGE structure. If you cannot see how strange it is, then I assume that you haven't checked the dictionaries.
In conclusion, I want to add value to your thread by proposing that:1) It is NOT the solely difference between "To-Inf" and "V-ing" that you have spent invaluable time to accumulate examples for us that is important, it is the whole IDIOMATIC expression.
2) There is a clear ORDER to consider when one see "To-Inf" and "V-ing"
- First, look for the noun/noun phrase to know what "To-Inf" or "V-ing" modifies. This method relies HEAVILY on your vocabulary and grammar to identify the correct choice. Most of the cases rest on this ability.
- Second, if you cannot see any term, or you vocabulary cannot help because it seems strange, then you should consider "To-Inf" in terms of the reflection of the purpose of the whole clause. However, be careful and look at all connectors and conjunctions for fear of redundancy, especially the case of Gerund (it is said that
"BEING" seems to be redundant in MOST cases. However, they (experts) also raise the concern that it is not only because of this point that you erase the choice because there have been already official answers which contain "being". The point of "being" is not discussed here, just the issue of "erasing or not" is important!)
- Third, when you have looked carefully enough and still CANNOT know how to choose because "To-Inf" and "V-ing" are, to you, equally reasonable, then it is your luck to prefer "To-Inf". I say LUCK because you may skip a certain sign (an idiomatic usage) that you don't know.
Again, thank you very much for you post. Hope my points are clear.