Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely

[RonPurewal]

If there's no comma before "and spend," would A be correct? Or would it still be inferior to D, because "spending less time with each" sounds like a direct and immediate consequence of the action "to see more patients"?

Thanks in advance.

The latter.

[divineacclivity]

Why is A wrong?
My though for picking up option A: verb+ing without a comma would modify the preceeding noun, so, imposing modifies "plans".
thanks

[divineacclivity]

Why is option A incorrect?
verb+ing without a comma modifies the preceeding noun, so, "imposing ..." would modify plans.

Mary made a beautiful bouquet releasing divine aroma.
releasing modifies bouqet here. Similarly A should be a correct option.

Please help me understand the problem with A.

[divineacclivity]

you have to realize which verbs are supposed to be parallel and which aren't. there's no grammatical formula for this; you have to examine the meaning of the sentence to figure it out.
- 'impose' (in whatever form) should be parallel to 'require' (again, in whatever form). these are two different things, both of which are aspects of the plan (= logical parallelism).
- 'spend' should not be parallel to 'see', because it functions as a modifier of 'see' (it's a descriptive adverb modifier, detailing the way in which the doctors see the patients).

choice a: 'spend' is ungrammatical here (it has no logical subject, and isn't parallel to anything).
choice b: imposing, requiring, and spending are all parallel, implying that the insurance plans do all three of these things (an absurdity in the last case).
choice c: all three verbs are parallel again, leading to the same absurdity witnessed in choice b.
choice d (= correct): the parallelism follows the model outlined above: only the verbs that are logically parallel appear in parallel structure.
choice e: 'requiring' and 'spending' are parallel in the modifier, implying that the plans themselves spend time with patients (in addition to requiring blah blah blah). this doesn't make sense.

So, why is A incorrect?
.. plans imposing a on b, and requiring doctors to see x, and spend y
Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than nonunion members to be enrolled in lower-end insurance plans imposing stricter limits on medical services and requiring doctors to see more patients, and spend less time with each.
(A) imposing stricter limits on medical services and requiring doctors to see more patients, and spend

[RonPurewal]

That comma precludes "see" and "spend" from being parallel structures.

Lists of 2 things don't have commas (unless those commas belong to something else, e.g., an intervening modifier). Any commas that are present, then, serve to break the ideas in the sentence up accordingly.

E.g.,
I came here with Brad and Todd, and Kyle drove separately.
I came with two people; one more person came separately.

I came here with Brad, and Todd and Kyle drove separately.
I came with one person; two more people came separately.

[lemonperb]

Hi GMAT instructors,
Can "E" be corrected to:
"that impose stricter limits on medical services, requiring doctors to see more patients and spend"?

Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than nonunionmembers to be enrolled in lower-end insurance plans that impose stricter limits on medical services, requiring doctors to see more patients and spend less time with each.

Here "requiring..." modifies the action of "impose stricter limits on medical services". I think there is relevance between "stricter limits" and "the requirement for doctors". Am I wrong?

And "to see...and spend..." are parallel in the meaning. It makes sense to "require doctors to see more patients and spend more time with each", right?

[RonPurewal]

Requiring doctors to see a larger number of patients is not a limitation on medical services, so that modifier doesn't make sense.

"Impose limits" and "force doctors to see more patients" are two separate effects of the plans. It doesn't make sense to write one of these as a modifier of the other.

[RonPurewal]

Also, "spending less time with each" is a direct consequence of seeing more patients, so those two should not be expressed as "x and y" (which would imply that they are 2 separate things).

[lemonperb]

Also, "spending less time with each" is a direct consequence of seeing more patients, so those two should not be expressed as "x and y" (which would imply that they are 2 separate things).

Got it! Thank you for your help Ron!

[RonPurewal]

Sure.

[yaoL613]

Hi, i have a question.

The next are some of the prep question that i saw in this forum.
1\In an attempt to guarantee the security of its innovative water purification method, the company required each employee to sign a confidentiality agreement prohibiting that its water purification methods be disclosed to companies using an analogous purification process.

A.prohibiting that its water purification methods be disclosed to companies
B.prohibiting them from the disclosing of its water purification methods to any company
C.prohibiting disclosure of its water purification methods to any company
D.that would prohibit them from disclosure of its water purification methods to companies
E.that would prohibit its water purification methods to be disclosed to a company

DE are wrong because the argeement can not itself prohibit something.


2\In the mid-1970's, since birds were overcome by pollution, and routinely falling from the sky above Los Angeles freeways, this prompted officials in California to devise a plan that reduced automobile emissions.

A、since birds were overcome by pollution, and routinely falling from the sky above Los Angeles freeways, this prompted officials in California to devise a plan that reduced
B、since birds that had been overcome by pollution were routinely falling from the sky above Los Angeles freeways, it prompted officials in California to devise a plan that would reduce
C、birds had been overcome by pollution and routinely fell from the sky above Los Angeles freeways, prompting officials in California to devise a plan that reduced
D、birds overcome by pollution routinely fell from the sky above Los Angeles freeways, prompting officials in California to devise a plan to reduce
E、birds overcome by pollution and routinely falling from the sky above Los Angeles freeways were prompting officials in California to devise a plan to reduce

ABC are wrong because the plan can not itself reduce.


3\Organized in 1966 by the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Breeding Bird Survey uses annual roadside counts along established routes for monitoring of population changes of as many as,or of more than 250 bird species, including 180 songbirds.

(A) for monitoring of population changes of as many as, or of
(B) to monitor population changes of as many, or
(C) to monitor changes in the populations of
(D) that monitors population changes of
(E) that monitors changes in populations of as many as, or

Again, DE are wrong because the roadside counts can not themselves monitor.

And come back to the question above, how can a plan impose and require something by itself? There must be something else do the things.

[RonPurewal]

why can't you drive through a red light? ...because the law prohibits driving through a red light.

why can't joe afford this brand-name drug? ...because his insurance plan imposes limits on reimbursement for the cost of brand-name drugs.

in neither of these sentences is there any specific person (or group of people, or whatever) that is prohibiting or limiting anything. rather, the entity that prohibits/limits things is an abstract entity--the law, your insurance plan, etc.

i'm genuinely perplexed by the complaint here.
how else would you propose that these sentences be written?
presuming you have some kind of alternative in mind, what is that alternative?

[jiayou2015j613]

Hi Ron,

Nice to write to you again.

Just now, I found something in a Prep SC conflicts with another in a Manhattan SC and please help figue it out where I think wrong with the below details:

1. The Prep SC:
--------------------------------
As the honeybee's stinger is heavily barbed, staying where it is inserted, this results in the act of stinging causing the bee to sustain a fatal injury.

A. As the honeybee's stinger is heavily barbed, staying where it is inserted, this results in the act of stinging causing
B. As the heavily barbed stinger of the honeybee stays where it is inserted, with the result that the act of stinging causes
C. The honeybee's stinger, heavily barbed and staying where it is inserted, results in the fact that the act of stinging causes
D. The heavily barbed stinger of the honeybee stays where it is inserted, and results in the act of stinging causing
E. The honeybee's stinger is heavily barbed and stays where it is inserted, with the result that the act of stinging causes

[note: ] The answer is E. Here is an explaination not to choose Option C that the part "heavily barbed and staying where it is inserted" is a parenthesis, causing "The honeybee's stinger results in the fact that the act of stinging causes ...", which is inconsistent with the logical meaning of the original sentence, for not The honeybee's stinger itself results in the act but the whole statement does, right??

2. The Manhattan SC:
--------------------------------
The javelin has a sharp point, which is more obviously dangerous than the discus; moreover, the discus is actually more likely to injure bystanders because, especially when wet, it can slip out of the thrower's hand and fly in a random trajectory.

A) javelin has a sharp point, which is more obviously dangerous than the discus; moreover,
B) javelin has a sharp point and is obviously more dangerous than the discus; however,
C) javelin's sharp point is obviously more dangerous than the discus, even though
D) javelin's sharp point makes it obviously more dangerous than the discus, even though
E) javelin, with its sharp point, is more obviously dangerous than the discus; however,

[note: ] The answer is E. For the E, I have a few confusions as follows:

(1) As I metioned above, the Answer E is similiar with the Option C in the above Prep SC and inconsistent with the logical meaning of the original sentence. Is it right?
(2) As I remember that Manhattan SC book mentioned that in this situation "more obviously dangerous " is kind of modification ambiguity, as "more" can modify "obviously" or "dangerous". That's why I exclude the Option E and chose B. However, after noticing the Answer Explaination, I do understand that "more" must modify the obviously due to the comparasion of the fact. I am really confused.
(3) The last, I would like to know which goes first priority: Logical Meaning or Rhetoric?

Sorry for all the trouble brought to you. Please help me off the hook. Thanks a million.

Happy Chinese Jragon Boat Day!
Maggie 6/22

[RonPurewal]

'obviously more dangerous' is definitely the wrong meaning, because the whole point of the entire sentence is that the discus actually poses a greater danger.

as for 'more obviously dangerous', there is no ambiguity there. you can't ignore 'obviously' and read this as 'more dangerous', because ... that isn't what it says. the word 'more' describes what comes after it.
this is already clear-cut, but it should be even more clear because the choices involve a decision about where to put 'more'. it belongs in front of 'obviously', and not in front of 'dangerous'.

[RonPurewal]

I would like to know which goes first priority: Logical Meaning or Rhetoric?

i don't understand the question. (specifically, i have no idea what you mean by 'Rhetoric', and i can't find anything else in your post that would help to define it.)

do me a favor: pretend i'm 9 years old, and ask the question in a way that i'll understand.
thanks.