To protect English manufacturers of woolen goods both agains

[TheChakra]

To protect English manufacturers of woolen goods both against American and Irish competition, England passed the Woolens act of 1698, which prohibited the export of woolen cloth beyond a colon's borders.

A. To protect English manufacturers of woolen goods both against American and Irish competition, England passed the Woolens act of 1698
B. In order to protect English manufacturers of woolen goods against both American and Irish competition, England passed the Woolens act of 1698
C. In order to protect some ....... obvious junk..

B is the correct answer. I want to make sure "To protect" and "In order to protect" is not playing a role here, or is it? The split is between "both against", which has incorrect parallelism and "against both", right? My first inclination was to say you don't really need "In order to" till I saw that split.

[RonPurewal]

correct: the distinction between 'to protect' and 'in order to protect' is irrelevant, as both forms are ok.
the decision is, as you've pointed out, predicated on parallelism.

[GMAT Fever]

To protect English manufacturers of woolen goods both against American and Irish competition, England passed the Woolens act of 1698, which prohibited the export of woolen cloth beyond a colon's borders.

A. To protect English manufacturers of woolen goods both against American and Irish competition, England passed the Woolens act of 1698
B. In order to protect English manufacturers of woolen goods against both American and Irish competition, England passed the Woolens act of 1698
C. In order to protect some ....... obvious junk..

B is the correct answer. I want to make sure "To protect" and "In order to protect" is not playing a role here, or is it? The split is between "both against", which has incorrect parallelism and "against both", right? My first inclination was to say you don't really need "In order to" till I saw that split.

So how do you properly use "both" or similar words in this circumstance? Should the use of "both" always precede the verb?

Would A). be correct if this change below was inserted?

To protect English manufacturers of woolen goods both against American and against Irish competition, England passed the Woolens act of 1698

Trying to get a grasp on how to use "both" and similar words properly...thanks!

[RonPurewal]

Should the use of "both" always precede the verb?

'both', as well as similar constructions, is used in the general context of parallelism; the main consideration is that the two parts should be both grammatically and logically parallel. it doesn't have to be placed before any particular part of speech; all that matters is that the parts of speech in the 2 parallel phrases are identical.

Would A). be correct if this change below was inserted?

To protect English manufacturers of woolen goods both against American and against Irish competition, England passed the Woolens act of 1698

that would be grammatically ok, but awkward/wordy. 'against both american and irish competition' is better and more concise.

[H]

Here is the complete question:

To protect English manufacturers of woolen goods both against American and Irish competition, England passed the Woolens Act of 1698, which prohibited the export of woolen cloth beyond a colony's borders.

(A) To protect English manufacturers of woolen goods both against American and Irish competition, England passed the Woolens Act of 1698
(B) In order to protect English manufacturers of woolen goods against both American and Irish competition, England passed the Woolens Act of 1698
(C) In order to protect English manufacturers of woolen goods against American, as well as against Irish, competition, the Woolens Act of 1698 was passed by England
(D) For protecting English manufacturers of woolen goods against American, as well as Irish, competition, England passed the Woolens Act of 1698
(E) For the protection of English manufacturers of woolen goods against both American and Irish competition, the Woolens Act of 1698, passed by England

A is out because "against American" is not parallel to "Irish".
C alternates the meaning a little bit.
E is out because "which" is a little bit ambiguous.
Both B and D look good to me. GMAC tends to prefer "to" over "for" to express the purpose of an action. So if I change "for protecting" to "(in order) to protect" in D, the only difference between B and my D is "against both American and Irish competition" vs. "against American, as well as Irish, competition".
Is there any difference between "as well as" and "both" in this context? (I understand that "both" can form a compound noun but "as well as" doesn't)

[H]

Another question: does "as well as" require a "strict" parallelism such that "against" has to precede Irish as well?
Thanks in advance.

[H]

Anyone?

[Guest]

Here is the complete question:


(D) For protecting English manufacturers of woolen goods against American, as well as Irish, competition, England passed the Woolens Act of 1698

Both B and D look good to me. GMAC tends to prefer "to" over "for" to express the purpose of an action. So if I change "for protecting" to "(in order) to protect" in D, the only difference between B and my D is "against both American and Irish competition" vs. "against American, as well as Irish, competition".
Is there any difference between "as well as" and "both" in this context? (I understand that "both" can form a compound noun but "as well as" doesn't)

H, your D still looks a bit ambiguous. If you re-arrange your sentence, it may sound ...... goods against 'American competition' as well as 'Irish'. The intended meaning is .... against 'American competition' as well as 'Irish competition'.

[RonPurewal]

Here is the complete question:


(D) For protecting English manufacturers of woolen goods against American, as well as Irish, competition, England passed the Woolens Act of 1698

Both B and D look good to me. GMAC tends to prefer "to" over "for" to express the purpose of an action. So if I change "for protecting" to "(in order) to protect" in D, the only difference between B and my D is "against both American and Irish competition" vs. "against American, as well as Irish, competition".
Is there any difference between "as well as" and "both" in this context? (I understand that "both" can form a compound noun but "as well as" doesn't)

H, your D still looks a bit ambiguous. If you re-arrange your sentence, it may sound ...... goods against 'American competition' as well as 'Irish'. The intended meaning is .... against 'American competition' as well as 'Irish competition'.

not ambiguous.
'american' is clearly parallel to 'irish'; there's no other way the 'as well as' construction can be processed.

[H]

Hi Ron,

So if I change "for protecting" to "(in order) to protect" in D, the only difference between B and my D is "against both American and Irish competition" vs. "against American, as well as Irish, competition".
Is there any difference between "as well as" and "both" in this context? (I understand that "both" can form a compound noun but "as well as" doesn't)
Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,

So if I change "for protecting" to "(in order) to protect" in D, the only difference between B and my D is "against both American and Irish competition" vs. "against American, as well as Irish, competition".
Is there any difference between "as well as" and "both" in this context? (I understand that "both" can form a compound noun but "as well as" doesn't)
Thanks in advance.

no. the death stroke for that answer choice is the 'for protecting' part; that simply isn't idiomatic.
both versions of the latter half make sense - 'against both american and irish competition' is just as reasonable as 'against american, as well as irish, ...'

[GEORGE KOSHY]

DOESN'T THE MODIFIER ( AS IN CHOICES A,B,& D) 'TO PROTECT ENGLISH MANUFACTURER'S OF WOOLEN GOODS BOTH AGAINST AMERICAN & IRISH COMPETITION' INCORRECTLY MODIFY ENGLAND? SHOULDN'T IT BE MODIFYING 'THE WOOLENS ACT OF 1698'? PLEASE ANYONE..RON?

[RonPurewal]

DOESN'T THE MODIFIER ( AS IN CHOICES A,B,& D) 'TO PROTECT ENGLISH MANUFACTURER'S OF WOOLEN GOODS BOTH AGAINST AMERICAN & IRISH COMPETITION' INCORRECTLY MODIFY ENGLAND? SHOULDN'T IT BE MODIFYING 'THE WOOLENS ACT OF 1698'? PLEASE ANYONE..RON?

infinitive modifiers don't modify nouns at all, actually; they aren't adjective-style modifiers.

when an infinitive is used as a modifier, as is done here, it modifies the entire clause to which it's attached. reading the sentence in this light, you should be able to make perfect sense of the modifier.

[Guest]

THANKS RON

[GEORGY]

THANKS RON