Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 09:53 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 09:53
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
avatar
mk96
avatar
Joined: 14 Mar 2018
Last visit: 18 Sep 2022
Posts: 79
Own Kudos:
22
Given Kudos: 194
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
Schools: IIMA PGPX'22
GPA: 4
WE:Corporate Finance (Finance: Investment Banking)
Schools: IIMA PGPX'22
Posts: 79
Kudos: 22
When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed at the prevention of a 27 Mar 2021, 00:35
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
dadele
GMATNinja could you please help us choose between option A and C.
The phrase "aim at" seems to have two possible functions. One is to aim the way we'd focus a gun on a target. In this case, we'd want a noun to come after the phrase. For example:

    Tim aimed the Super Soaker at his toddler's head, greatly displeasing the toddler's grandparents.

The target here is the "toddler's head," a simple noun phrase.

The other way "aim at" can be used is to convey the sense of attempting to achieve a goal. In this case, the phrase is often followed by an -ing action:

    Most of Tim's therapy has been aimed at making him less cruel and vengeful towards his children.

Now the therapy has an objective: making Tim less cruel.

Notice that, in (A) "aim at" is followed by the noun "prevention," and in (C) "aim at" is followed by the -ing form, "preventing. So the real question here is which usage makes more sense: are we focusing a projectile on a target, in which case, we'd prefer the noun? Or are we trying to achieve a goal, in which case, we'd want the -ing?

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to claim that someone is launching Medicare at a target the way one might shoot an arrow. Rather, it's more logical to write that Medicare is attempting to achieve a goal, so it's the second usage that's appropriate, and we want to follow "aim at" with an -ing that captures the goal. This is what we have in (C).

I hope that helps!
Show more



GMATNinja - I have one doubt in correct answer choice.
It says "financially destroying"
financially is an adverb and "Destroying" is a gerund or -ing form of noun. How can an adverb modify the noun "destroying". Please please help out sir.

Thanks,
mk96
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,784
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,784
 [2]
When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed at the prevention of a 29 Mar 2021, 12:19
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mk96
GMATNinja
dadele
GMATNinja could you please help us choose between option A and C.
The phrase "aim at" seems to have two possible functions. One is to aim the way we'd focus a gun on a target. In this case, we'd want a noun to come after the phrase. For example:

    Tim aimed the Super Soaker at his toddler's head, greatly displeasing the toddler's grandparents.

The target here is the "toddler's head," a simple noun phrase.

The other way "aim at" can be used is to convey the sense of attempting to achieve a goal. In this case, the phrase is often followed by an -ing action:

    Most of Tim's therapy has been aimed at making him less cruel and vengeful towards his children.

Now the therapy has an objective: making Tim less cruel.

Notice that, in (A) "aim at" is followed by the noun "prevention," and in (C) "aim at" is followed by the -ing form, "preventing. So the real question here is which usage makes more sense: are we focusing a projectile on a target, in which case, we'd prefer the noun? Or are we trying to achieve a goal, in which case, we'd want the -ing?

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to claim that someone is launching Medicare at a target the way one might shoot an arrow. Rather, it's more logical to write that Medicare is attempting to achieve a goal, so it's the second usage that's appropriate, and we want to follow "aim at" with an -ing that captures the goal. This is what we have in (C).

I hope that helps!



GMATNinja - I have one doubt in correct answer choice.
It says "financially destroying"
financially is an adverb and "Destroying" is a gerund or -ing form of noun. How can an adverb modify the noun "destroying". Please please help out sir.

Thanks,
mk96
Show more
Interesting question!

First, consider a more conventional example, one in which the -ing word is functioning as an adjective, rather than a noun.

    As the swimming shark circled his kids, Tim began to doubt the wisdom of his plan to attract dolphins by tossing bloody steaks into the ocean.

Notice that "approaching" is an adjective here, modifying the shark. It would be fair game to modify "approaching" with an adverb, and write the "swiftly approaching shark." You probably recognized that this construction is fine, not by thinking, "the adverb is modifying an adjective, and this is acceptable," but simply because it makes sense to you.

And while adverbs can describe adjectives, surely you couldn't modify an ordinary adjective, such as "blue" with "swiftly," right? So the reason it works in this case is that "approaching" captures an implied action, even though technically it's an adjective.

The same logic could apply if we use an -ing as a noun (or gerund, if you like jargon). Consider another example:

    Swimming is fun, until the sharks your father attracted with his misguided scheme begin a terrifying feeding frenzy.

Here, "swimming" is a noun. But again, because it captures an implied action, we could describe it with an adverb. "Swimming quickly is fun," for example, is perfectly fine.

Similar idea in the phrase "financially destroying." Because "destroying" conveys an implied action, even though it's technically functioning as a noun, describing it with the adverb "financially" is acceptable.

The takeaway: only use grammar rules if you're 100% sure they're applicable in a given context. If you're not sure, and the logic of the sentence seems fine, move on to other issues.

I hope that helps!
avatar
pk6969
avatar
Joined: 25 May 2020
Last visit: 02 Jan 2022
Posts: 136
Own Kudos:
14
Given Kudos: 70
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
Schools: Babson CBS '23 Broad
GPA: 3.2
Schools: Babson CBS '23 Broad
Posts: 136
Kudos: 14
When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed at the prevention of a 12 Apr 2021, 05:59
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
dadele
GMATNinja could you please help us choose between option A and C.
The phrase "aim at" seems to have two possible functions. One is to aim the way we'd focus a gun on a target. In this case, we'd want a noun to come after the phrase. For example:

    Tim aimed the Super Soaker at his toddler's head, greatly displeasing the toddler's grandparents.

The target here is the "toddler's head," a simple noun phrase.

The other way "aim at" can be used is to convey the sense of attempting to achieve a goal. In this case, the phrase is often followed by an -ing action:

    Most of Tim's therapy has been aimed at making him less cruel and vengeful towards his children.

Now the therapy has an objective: making Tim less cruel.

Notice that, in (A) "aim at" is followed by the noun "prevention," and in (C) "aim at" is followed by the -ing form, "preventing. So the real question here is which usage makes more sense: are we focusing a projectile on a target, in which case, we'd prefer the noun? Or are we trying to achieve a goal, in which case, we'd want the -ing?

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to claim that someone is launching Medicare at a target the way one might shoot an arrow. Rather, it's more logical to write that Medicare is attempting to achieve a goal, so it's the second usage that's appropriate, and we want to follow "aim at" with an -ing that captures the goal. This is what we have in (C).

I hope that helps!
Show more

Hi! In C, we have 'The elderly patient' so it feels like law was enacted for a particular patient. Because of this, I rejected C. Help.

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,784
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,784
When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed at the prevention of a 03 May 2021, 13:11
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
pk6969
Hi! In C, we have 'The elderly patient' so it feels like law was enacted for a particular patient. Because of this, I rejected C. Help.

Posted from my mobile device
Show more
This sort of thing is quite common in English. For example, "The goal of the weekly podcast is to help the overwhelmed taxpayer."

  • Even though "the overwhelmed taxpayer" is singular, we aren't talking about one single taxpayer.
  • Instead, we are talking about each/every/any taxpayer.
  • But by using the instead of each/every/any, the tone is a bit more personal. Kinda like, "Hey, you, overwhelmed taxpayer curled up in the fetal position while listening to this message -- our podcast can help YOU in particular!
  • We are talking to each and every particular overwhelmed taxpayer.

Similarly, in (C), we are talking about each every particular elderly patient.

This is admittedly a bit confusing, and it isn't something that shows up all that often on the GMAT as a major decision point. When in doubt, your best bet is to be conservative with this sort of thing and look for more concrete ways to eliminate answer choices.

I hope that helps!
avatar
dingodudesir
avatar
Joined: 14 Mar 2021
Last visit: 03 Mar 2022
Posts: 13
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 46
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
GPA: 4
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
Posts: 13
Kudos: 1
When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed at the prevention of a 11 May 2021, 23:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
daagh
When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed at the prevention of a catastrophic illness from financially destroying elderly patients.

(A) at the prevention of a catastrophic illness from financially destroying elderly patients
(B) at being a preventive against catastrophic illness financially destroying elderly patients
(C) at preventing a catastrophic illness from financially destroying the elderly patient
(D) to prevent a catastrophic illness financially destroying an elderly patient
(E) to prevent elderly patients being financially destroyed by a catastrophic illness

The entry into the topic is through the split between the singular patient and the plural patients. Nobody will enact a law for the sake of a single patient or the patient. Therefore, let's drop C and D.
Show more

Big fan, daagh Sir!

However, I feel your reasoning for eliminating C is flawed.
Option D says : destroying AN elderly patient. This does indicate that the law was enacted for a single elderly patient.
Option C says: destroying THE elderly patient. The article 'the' changes the meaning. "the" elderly patient then would refer to a typical elderly patient for which Medicare was passed.

Please let me know if I am mistaken in my logic. Thank you!
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,502
Own Kudos:
7,511
 [1]
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,502
Kudos: 7,511
 [1]
When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed at the prevention of a 12 May 2021, 08:24
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
dingodudesir
daagh
When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed at the prevention of a catastrophic illness from financially destroying elderly patients.

(A) at the prevention of a catastrophic illness from financially destroying elderly patients
(B) at being a preventive against catastrophic illness financially destroying elderly patients
(C) at preventing a catastrophic illness from financially destroying the elderly patient
(D) to prevent a catastrophic illness financially destroying an elderly patient
(E) to prevent elderly patients being financially destroyed by a catastrophic illness

The entry into the topic is through the split between the singular patient and the plural patients. Nobody will enact a law for the sake of a single patient or the patient. Therefore, let's drop C and D.

Big fan, daagh Sir!

However, I feel your reasoning for eliminating C is flawed.
Option D says : destroying AN elderly patient. This does indicate that the law was enacted for a single elderly patient.
Option C says: destroying THE elderly patient. The article 'the' changes the meaning. "the" elderly patient then would refer to a typical elderly patient for which Medicare was passed.

Please let me know if I am mistaken in my logic. Thank you!
Show more
Hello, dingodudesir. Your logic is fine. Just see the post right above yours by GMATNinja for confirmation. I felt compelled to write, however, to point out that daagh will not be responding to your post—he has passed away. There was a memorial for him that bb posted several months back, a post you can find a link to in the signature of any post by daagh. (You could even click on the profile link in your own post to find it.)

Sorry to be the bearer of such news.

- Andrew
avatar
faat99
avatar
Joined: 12 Jul 2020
Last visit: 21 Mar 2022
Posts: 76
Own Kudos:
18
Given Kudos: 108
Location: United Kingdom
Schools: Judge '23 Said '23
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
Schools: Judge '23 Said '23
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
Posts: 76
Kudos: 18
When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed at the prevention of a 21 Oct 2021, 00:09
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Can someone confirm whether "illness financially destroying the elderly patients" is definitely wrong.

In my mind I feel the reading of "we need to stop him doing that" sounds right, but maybe it is oral, so we are saying we need "from" for these sentence, is that correct?

We need to stop him from doing that / prevent illness from destroying old man, etc.

If so, B and D will be eliminated.

Thanks and Regards.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,784
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,784
 [2]
When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed at the prevention of a 21 Oct 2021, 16:18
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
faat99
Can someone confirm whether "illness financially destroying the elderly patients" is definitely wrong.

In my mind I feel the reading of "we need to stop him doing that" sounds right, but maybe it is oral, so we are saying we need "from" for these sentence, is that correct?

We need to stop him from doing that / prevent illness from destroying old man, etc.

If so, B and D will be eliminated.

Thanks and Regards.
Show more
Yeah, the problem with leaving out the "from" (as in B and D) is that "destroying" can be misinterpreted as a modifier that describes "illness" -- as if the thing we are trying to prevent is a catastrophic illness that IS already running around causing the financial destruction of elderly patients! Clearly that doesn't make much sense.

The addition of "from" makes the meaning more clear. What are we trying to stop? The illness from doing something, not an illness that happens to be financially destroying elderly patients.

Does that make "illness financially destroying" definitely wrong? Maybe. But as we say all the time, your job isn't to label individual structures/sentences as universally wrong or right. Your job is to look for the BEST option, and the intended meaning is much clearer in choice (C).

I hope that helps!
User avatar
tanaykmehta
User avatar
Joined: 01 Sep 2021
Last visit: 16 Jan 2025
Posts: 3
Given Kudos: 4
Location: India
Posts: 3
Kudos: 0
When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed at the prevention of a 26 Oct 2021, 23:42
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
MikeScarn

Really tough question!



hazelnut
(A)When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed at the prevention of a catastrophic illness from financially destroying elderly patients.

"aimed at the prevention of x from destroying y" is awkward and difficult to understand.

hazelnut
(B) When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed at being a preventive against catastrophic illness financially destroying elderly patients.

"aimed at being a preventative" is incorrect. The use of the article 'a' indicates that a noun is coming. "preventative" can be used as an adjective or a noun.

If we were to use "preventative" as a noun, I believe "preventative against" is idiomatically incorrect. I believe we would need "preventative for." I'm certainly open to feedback on this one. The OE just eliminated this option because of 'wordiness'... :problem:

hazelnut
(C) When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed at preventing a catastrophic illness from financially destroying the elderly patient.

I see no problems here

The tricky part is the singular noun 'the elderly patient.' I could see how many folks would think *That doesn't make any sense! Medicare wasn't enacted for a single elderly patient!*

I hear you, but this is another strange style/usage thing that we use in everyday speech. I'll write a few examples below:

"Growing up in a lower class household, Mike votes for city officials that advocate for the poor man."

"Mike began his Duke basketball fan-hood by watching players like JJ Redick, who in his thirteenth season in the NBA, has always been relatively unathletic compared to his peers. JJ is an inspiration to the kid who can't jump very high or move very quickly."

hazelnut
(D) When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed to prevent a catastrophic illness financially destroying an elderly patient.

1. We do not need the infinitive "to prevent" after the simple past tense 'aimed'. Verb Tense Error

2. We are missing the word 'from' in-between 'illness' and 'financially'.

hazelnut
(E) When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed to prevent elderly patients being financially destroyed by a catastrophic illness.

Verb Tense Error and Meaning Error

Think about it. When medicare was enacted in 1965 (the past), it was aimed to prevent elderly patients being financially destroyed.

This is missing the word 'from' before 'being.' Medicare wasn't aimed to prevent elderly patients that are financially destroyed. It was aimed to prevent elderly patients from getting financially destroyed.

Bonus Content :)

If I were to write this sentence, I would do it as so:

MikeScarn
When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was intended to prevent catastrophic illnesses from financially destroying elderly patients.
Wouldn't that be easier ;)
Show more

The option C mentions 'the patient' instead of 'patients'. Why would they enact the medicare just for one patient? Doesn't it change the meaning?
User avatar
ExpertsGlobal5
User avatar
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,195
Own Kudos:
4,765
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: 5,195
Kudos: 4,765
When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed at the prevention of a 28 Oct 2021, 00:09
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
tanaykmehta
MikeScarn

Really tough question!



hazelnut
(A)When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed at the prevention of a catastrophic illness from financially destroying elderly patients.

"aimed at the prevention of x from destroying y" is awkward and difficult to understand.

hazelnut
(B) When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed at being a preventive against catastrophic illness financially destroying elderly patients.

"aimed at being a preventative" is incorrect. The use of the article 'a' indicates that a noun is coming. "preventative" can be used as an adjective or a noun.

If we were to use "preventative" as a noun, I believe "preventative against" is idiomatically incorrect. I believe we would need "preventative for." I'm certainly open to feedback on this one. The OE just eliminated this option because of 'wordiness'... :problem:

hazelnut
(C) When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed at preventing a catastrophic illness from financially destroying the elderly patient.

I see no problems here

The tricky part is the singular noun 'the elderly patient.' I could see how many folks would think *That doesn't make any sense! Medicare wasn't enacted for a single elderly patient!*

I hear you, but this is another strange style/usage thing that we use in everyday speech. I'll write a few examples below:

"Growing up in a lower class household, Mike votes for city officials that advocate for the poor man."

"Mike began his Duke basketball fan-hood by watching players like JJ Redick, who in his thirteenth season in the NBA, has always been relatively unathletic compared to his peers. JJ is an inspiration to the kid who can't jump very high or move very quickly."

hazelnut
(D) When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed to prevent a catastrophic illness financially destroying an elderly patient.

1. We do not need the infinitive "to prevent" after the simple past tense 'aimed'. Verb Tense Error

2. We are missing the word 'from' in-between 'illness' and 'financially'.

hazelnut
(E) When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed to prevent elderly patients being financially destroyed by a catastrophic illness.

Verb Tense Error and Meaning Error

Think about it. When medicare was enacted in 1965 (the past), it was aimed to prevent elderly patients being financially destroyed.

This is missing the word 'from' before 'being.' Medicare wasn't aimed to prevent elderly patients that are financially destroyed. It was aimed to prevent elderly patients from getting financially destroyed.

Bonus Content :)

If I were to write this sentence, I would do it as so:

MikeScarn
When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was intended to prevent catastrophic illnesses from financially destroying elderly patients.
Wouldn't that be easier ;)

The option C mentions 'the patient' instead of 'patients'. Why would they enact the medicare just for one patient? Doesn't it change the meaning?
Show more

Hello tanaykmehta,

We hope this finds you well.

Having gone through the question and your query, we believe we can help resolve your doubt.

As mentioned by GMATNinja above, here "the elderly patient" refers to elderly patients in general; this construction is a common idiom in the English language; you may have seen such usages as "the common man" or "the typical MBA student". This construction "the A", wherein A is a category of some sort, refers to any given example of A in any given situation.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,784
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,784
 [1]
When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed at the prevention of a 28 Oct 2021, 16:36
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
tanaykmehta

The option C mentions 'the patient' instead of 'patients'. Why would they enact the medicare just for one patient? Doesn't it change the meaning?
Show more
Not really. "The elderly patient" is used here to represent the group, elderly patients, in general.

For instance, "The school enacted a new curriculum aimed at the struggling student."

In this case, the new curriculum wasn't created for an individual student. Rather, "the struggling student" represents a category of students. And that's fine.

Also worth noting: when an answer choice introduces a different meaning than the one you see in (A), it's only a problem if the new meaning is illogical. There's nothing special about (A)'s meaning. You just want the best of the bunch.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
waytowharton
User avatar
Joined: 22 Apr 2021
Last visit: 16 Sep 2025
Posts: 130
Own Kudos:
18
Given Kudos: 409
Posts: 130
Kudos: 18
When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed at the prevention of a 15 Apr 2022, 20:07
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB GMATNinjaTwo DmitryFarber ExpertsGlobal5
AjiteshArun

Doubt -

Sentence – When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed _at the prevention of a catastrophic illness from financially destroying elderly patients._
Options –
(A) at the prevention of a catastrophic illness from financially destroying elderly patients
(C) at preventing a catastrophic illness from financially destroying the elderly patient

Understanding – when an action noun exists, avoid using the gerund form.

Doubt – options A and C are exactly the same except option A has action noun form(prevention) whereas option c has simple gerund(preventing) and option A elderly patients while option C has the elderly patients. Now Option A is better in one respect and Option C is better in other respect. How to select answer in this case? Please do help!
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,994
 [2]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,994
 [2]
When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed at the prevention of a 15 Apr 2022, 23:07
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
waytowharton
KarishmaB GMATNinjaTwo DmitryFarber ExpertsGlobal5
AjiteshArun

Doubt -

Sentence – When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed _at the prevention of a catastrophic illness from financially destroying elderly patients._
Options –
(A) at the prevention of a catastrophic illness from financially destroying elderly patients
(C) at preventing a catastrophic illness from financially destroying the elderly patient

Understanding – when an action noun exists, avoid using the gerund form.

Doubt – options A and C are exactly the same except option A has action noun form(prevention) whereas option c has simple gerund(preventing) and option A elderly patients while option C has the elderly patients. Now Option A is better in one respect and Option C is better in other respect. How to select answer in this case? Please do help!
Show more

(C) is perfectly acceptable whereas (A) has some concerns.

We can say 'aimed at A' or 'aimed at doing A'

(A) it was aimed at the prevention of a catastrophic illness from financially destroying elderly patients.

Here, we are saying 'it was aimed at the prevention of a catastrophic illness'. This would be fine if it had ended here. 'catastrophic illness' is the object of the preposition 'of' . But there is a 'from' after that. So is it "prevention of A' and 'prevention from doing B'? It is quite confusing.

(C) it was aimed at preventing a catastrophic illness from financially destroying the elderly patient

Note here that we do not have the preposition 'of'. This simplifies matters.
The structure here is "aimed at preventing A from doing B". Makes sense.
User avatar
Rickooreo
User avatar
Joined: 24 Dec 2021
Last visit: 15 Feb 2023
Posts: 302
Own Kudos:
30
Given Kudos: 240
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
Schools: ISB '24 Moore '25
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V35
GPA: 3.95
WE:Real Estate (Consulting)
Schools: ISB '24 Moore '25
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V35
Posts: 302
Kudos: 30
When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed at the prevention of a 24 Sep 2022, 01:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATIntensive
Sentence Analysis



The sentence provides the original aim of Medicare. The sentence seems to say that the aim was to prevent a catastrophic illness from financially destroying elderly patients.

The sentence has the following problems:

1. As is, the sentence means that the law, Medicare, was aimed at preventing a catastrophic illness – this doesn’t make much sense. How can a law prevent people from suffering catastrophic illnesses?
2. The modification of “prevention” by “from financially destroying elderly patients” doesn’t make sense since “prevention from financially destroying patients” doesn’t make sense.

Option Analysis

A. at the prevention of a catastrophic illness from financially destroying elderly patients
Incorrect. For the reasons mentioned above.

B. at being a preventive against catastrophic illness financially destroying elderly patients
Incorrect. For the following reasons:

1. The phrase “aimed at being a preventive against illness” is sufficiently awkward. For example, we don’t say “This protest is aimed at being a demonstrator for the injustice”; we say “This protest is aimed at demonstrating the injustice”.
2. In this option, “financially destroying elderly patients” is a verb-ing modifier for the “illness”. Thus, the option means that the law was aimed at preventing some kind of illness. What kind of illnesses? The kind of illnesses that are financially destroying elderly patients. Neither of these aspects – the law aiming at preventing illnesses, and preventing illnesses that are currently financially destroying elderly patients – makes sense.

C. at preventing a catastrophic illness from financially destroying the elderly patient
Correct. This option says that the law was aimed at preventing x from doing y i.e. the aim was that x should not be able to do y. In other words, the aim was that a catastrophic illness should not be able to financially destroy elderly patients. That makes a lot of sense. Financial aid could be provided to elderly people who are suffering from a catastrophic illness so that they don’t get financially destroyed.

D. to prevent a catastrophic illness financially destroying an elderly patient
Incorrect. This option has the second error of option B.

E. to prevent elderly patients being financially destroyed by a catastrophic illness
Incorrect. This option says that the law is trying to prevent elderly patients! Doesn’t make sense. Also, “being financially destroyed” is a verb-ing modifier for “patients”, meaning that we are talking about patients that are currently being destroyed by a catastrophic illness. Again, doesn’t make sense.

Please note that while the official explanation says that “aimed to” is incorrect, this use is quite common in credible publications such as WSJ.com and Nytimes.com. Thus, we do not consider this construction incorrect.
Show more

GMATIntensive GMATNinja KarishmaB EMPOWERgmatVerbal

I am not sure of the reason provided for rejecting option A, importance is not given to the verb was aimed at
As per GMATIntensive : . How can a law prevent people from suffering catastrophic illnesses?
However, if we consider the verb, it does make sense - Law was AIMED AT preventing people from suffering catastrophic illnesses (by taking some measures)

Treaty of Versailles was aimed at ending the state of war between Germany and the Allied Powers.


Also, for option C, as Daagh stated
"The entry into the topic is through the split between the singular patient and the plural patients. Nobody will enact a law for the sake of a single patient or the patient. Therefore, let's drop C and D."

Which is this concept incorrect?
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,784
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,784
When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed at the prevention of a 27 Sep 2022, 11:26
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Rickooreo

GMATIntensive GMATNinja KarishmaB EMPOWERgmatVerbal

I am not sure of the reason provided for rejecting option A, importance is not given to the verb was aimed at
As per GMATIntensive : . How can a law prevent people from suffering catastrophic illnesses?
However, if we consider the verb, it does make sense - Law was AIMED AT preventing people from suffering catastrophic illnesses (by taking some measures)

Treaty of Versailles was aimed at ending the state of war between Germany and the Allied Powers.


Also, for option C, as Daagh stated
"The entry into the topic is through the split between the singular patient and the plural patients. Nobody will enact a law for the sake of a single patient or the patient. Therefore, let's drop C and D."

Which is this concept incorrect?
Show more
Take a look at our earlier post about why (A) is problematic, and let us know if that doesn't answer your question!
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,830
Own Kudos:
986
Posts: 18,830
Kudos: 986
When Medicare was enacted in 1965, it was aimed at the prevention of a 21 Oct 2024, 09:30
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.
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts