Unlike psychiatrists, who are trained as medical doctors, psychologists have historically been forbidden from prescribing their patient drugs, but in 2002 New Mexico began to grant the privilege of prescribing to licensed, doctoral level psychologists who complete an additional training and certification program. A. psychologists have historically been forbidden from prescribing their patients drugs, but in 2002 New Mexico began to grant the privilege of prescribing B. psychologists have historically been forbidden to prescribe drugs for their patients, but in 2002 New Mexico began granting prescribing privileges C. psychologists have historically been forbidden to prescribe their patients drugs, but in 2002 in New Mexico, the privilege to prescribe began to be granted D. historically psychologists have been forbidden from prescribing their patients drugs, but in 2002 New Mexico began to grant the privilege of prescribing E. historically psychologists have been forbidden from prescribing drugs for their patients, but in 2002 in New Mexico, they began granting prescribing privileges ---- my specific question is, is there a difference between: ..but in 2002 New Mexico began to grant... ..but in 2002 New Mexico began granting.. thanks.

Last visit was: 01 May 2026, 14:05

It is currently 01 May 2026, 14:05

Toolkit

Sentence Correction (SC - EA only)

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.

Go to My Error Log Learn more

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Back to Forum

Create Topic

Unlike psychiatrists, who are trained as medical doctors, psychologist

1 2

ExpertsGlobal5

Experts' Global Representative

Joined: 10 Jul 2017

Last visit: 01 May 2026

Posts: 6,297

Own Kudos:

6,264

Given Kudos: 45

Location: India

GMAT Date: 11-01-2019

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 6,297

Kudos: 6,264

17 Nov 2022, 05:38

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bp36mafia

Is it correct to state that in option A ( Though I marked it as my choice ) is wrong because if I look it from meaning standpoint "New Mexico began to grant". So how can something be started and then we show an intent and that too in past tense ( or a direction in which they wanted to move). It has to be " New Mexico began granting...…".

Hello Bp36mafia,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, the use of the infinitive verb form to refer to the purpose or intent of an action is merely a preference, not a requirement; a correct answer can very well use a different construction to do so.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

bilawal_saeed

Joined: 28 Oct 2020

Last visit: 01 Sep 2024

Posts: 4

Given Kudos: 221

Location: India

Schools: ISB '23 Kellogg '24

GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V36 Verified score

Schools: ISB '23 Kellogg '24

GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V36 Verified score

Posts: 4

Kudos: 0

05 Jul 2023, 06:16

Kudos

Bookmarks

Quote:

GMATNinja, KarishmaB, DmitryFarber, AndrewN can you please check my POE?
I want to select the correct option amongst A, B, and D. The phrases forbidden + to + verb as well as forbidden + from + gerund are correct. So now I need to compare other parts.

In the last part of the options A and D, prescribing is followed by to licensed, doctoral level psychologists
I think 'to licensed...' can modify both 'privilege' and 'prescribing', which implies that the psychologists themselves were being prescribed medications. Hence A and D are wrong or at least ambiguous

I can't find any other way to eliminate A and D

Ritik25

Joined: 31 Mar 2021

Last visit: 25 Mar 2026

Posts: 33

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 8

Posts: 33

Kudos: 19

06 Jul 2023, 09:10

Kudos

Bookmarks

I still didn't understand the logic behind why "forbidden to" is correct here. Browsing online, it seems that the correct idiom whenever a person or entity is involved should be that an entity is "forbidden from" doing something, whereas "forbidden to" is used in a general sense without a specific entity involved, i.e. "It is forbidden to do something". Why is this rule not being adhered to here?

AndrewN

Volunteer Expert

Joined: 16 May 2019

Last visit: 29 Mar 2025

Posts: 3,490

Own Kudos:

7,672

[2]

Given Kudos: 500

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 3,490

Kudos: 7,672

[2]

08 Jul 2023, 16:12

Kudos

Bookmarks

bilawal_saeed

Quote:

Hello, bilawal_saeed. Answer choice (D) can be eliminated from the first word, historically. Whenever you encounter a comparison, you want to keep that comparison as tight as possible, as parallel as you can make it. Notice that the comparison starts, unlike psychiatrists, so we want to see psychologists mentioned right after to complete the job-to-job comparison. We might expect to see a comparison more like the one in (D) if the sentence started with a job plus a time indicator: unlike psychiatrists at present or unlike present-day psychiatrists. Even then, though, I would expect historically to follow the verb have: psychologists have historically been forbidden...

Between the original sentence and the iteration in (B), I agree that the roundabout privilege of prescribing to... psychologists does lend itself to misinterpretation, even if the context of the sentence suggests one interpretation over the other. (B) sidesteps the issue nicely with a simple prescribing privileges to... psychologists. Now, it is clear that a certain type of privilege was granted to a particular group of people, not to people in general. Between one option that is mealymouthed and requires a bit of work to sort out and another that is clear and direct, the choice should be evident. This is admittedly a tough question beyond a certain point, one that teaches us not to be too mechanical in our understanding of proper phrasing.

Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

Raman109

Joined: 17 Aug 2009

Last visit: 28 Jul 2025

Posts: 705

Own Kudos:

213

Given Kudos: 33

Posts: 705

Kudos: 213

02 Dec 2023, 09:15

Kudos

Bookmarks

Unlike psychiatrists, who are trained as medical doctors, psychologists have historically been forbidden from prescribing their patient drugs, but in 2002 New Mexico began to grant the privilege of prescribing to licensed, doctoral level psychologists who complete an additional training and certification program.

Option Elimination -

A. psychologists have historically been forbidden from prescribing their patients drugs, but in 2002 New Mexico began to grant the privilege of prescribing -
First, "forbidden to" and "forbidden from" are acceptable usages. But they have a different purpose.
1. "Forbidden to" indicates when someone is not allowed to do something. The key is that it emphasizes the prohibition or restriction on the PERSON. E.g., He is forbidden to enter the premises.
2. "Forbidden from" is used when emphasizing the ACTION. He is forbidden from leaving the country. Here, the focus is on the action of "leaving the country."

In the question at hand, the focus is on the PERSON: the comparison first starts with the "unlike" comparison marker between "psychiatrists" and "psychologists." We are now talking more about "psychologists." Thus, to emphasize the PERSON, we need "forbidden to." Moreover, "prescribing their patient's drugs" is quite weird. We normally say, "The doctor prescribed antibiotics for the patient's infection." So the doctor prescribed what? Antibiotics. But in our usage, we are " prescribing their patients drugs." Prescribing what? "their patient drugs"? Is it some medication or therapy? No. Wrong.

B. psychologists have historically been forbidden to prescribe drugs for their patients, but in 2002, New Mexico began granting prescribing privileges - "forbidden to" is used correctly to emphasize the PERSON. Moreover, "granting" is a gerund acting as an object of the verb "began." "for" here shows the purpose, meaning psychologists have been forbidden to prescribe drugs for the treatment or benefit of their patients.

C. psychologists have historically been forbidden to prescribe their patients drugs, but in 2002 in New Mexico, the privilege to prescribe began to be granted - the same issue of "prescribe their patients drugs" and the passive construction "began to be granted" while not inherently wrong is inferior.

D. historically psychologists have been forbidden from prescribing their patients drugs, but in 2002 New Mexico began to grant the privilege of prescribing - We need to "forbidden to" as the emphasis is on PERSON here and not on the ACTION. The same issue of "prescribing their patients drugs." "historically" as an adverb modifying "psychologists" noun?

E. historically psychologists have been forbidden from prescribing drugs for their patients, but in 2002 in New Mexico, they began granting prescribing privileges - the same "forbidden from" issues. Moreover, what is "they" referring to? Nothing? Wrong.

1 2

Moderators:

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

7391 posts

AbhishekP220108

513 posts

bhanu29

363 posts