Sentence Correction

In the old Dutch settlement of Beverwyck - now Albany, New York - so many people were hurt and windows broken that an ordinance was issued forbidding golf in the streets.

A. broken that an ordinance was issued forbidding
B. broken that they issued an ordinance to forbid
C. were broken that they issued an ordinance forbidding
D. had been broken that an ordinance was issued to forbid
E. had been broken that an ordinance was issued forbidding

[spoiler]OA: A[/spoiler]

[spoiler]I've read the explanation, but found myself unsatisfied. Can we use "issued to forbid"?[/spoiler]

limestone, I think A should be the answer

with respect to "issued to forbid"
B would have been wrong as "they" is unknown
D "had been broken" would not suit as simple past is required not the past perfect.

limestone wrote:In the old Dutch settlement of Beverwyck - now Albany, New York - so many people were hurt and windows broken that an ordinance was issued forbidding golf in the streets.

A. broken that an ordinance was issued forbidding
B. broken that they issued an ordinance to forbid
C. were broken that they issued an ordinance forbidding
D. had been broken that an ordinance was issued to forbid
E. had been broken that an ordinance was issued forbidding

[spoiler]OA: A[/spoiler]

[spoiler]I've read the explanation, but found myself unsatisfied. Can we use "issued to forbid"?[/spoiler]

D and E can be eliminated because of improper use of past perfect tense. (had been)
B and C can be eliminated because they contain 'They' which is confusing and means 'People who were hurt'. People who were hurt can not issue ordinance.

A is correct.

Why can't injured people issue ordinances? Only non-injured people can issue ordinances? I imagine that the injured people would be more eager to establish such ordinances.

sharmasumitn1 wrote:

limestone wrote:In the old Dutch settlement of Beverwyck - now Albany, New York - so many people were hurt and windows broken that an ordinance was issued forbidding golf in the streets.

A. broken that an ordinance was issued forbidding
B. broken that they issued an ordinance to forbid
C. were broken that they issued an ordinance forbidding
D. had been broken that an ordinance was issued to forbid
E. had been broken that an ordinance was issued forbidding

[spoiler]OA: A[/spoiler]

[spoiler]I've read the explanation, but found myself unsatisfied. Can we use "issued to forbid"?[/spoiler]

D and E can be eliminated because of improper use of past perfect tense. (had been)
B and C can be eliminated because they contain 'They' which is confusing and means 'People who were hurt'. People who were hurt can not issue ordinance.

A is correct.

@Limestone , u could have posted the OA after sometime after the question was answered.

Many people were hurt and windows broken(Fragment of the sentence)

(1) Many people were hurt
(2) Many people were windows broken.

The same thing is used in choices A and B.
For this reason alone i eliminated A and B.

Coming to the other choices D and E used had been which is wrong.

Remaining choice C.
Forbidding = Meaning the Golf is taking place in the streets now and they are stopping it right now.
It makes sense when comparing to other choices.
(They - is considered ambiguous).
But i think this error is much more better(in positive sense) than the error in choices A and B.

If we have to deal with this question i think (A) choice should be modified from
broken that an ordinance was issued forbidding
To
were broken that an ordinance was issued forbidding.

Whats the source of this question anyway???

Hi Limeston,

I kept A as a Contender and tried to eliminate the other answer choices.

(B) & (C) Pronoun "they" can refer to people or windows. I don't think an ordinance is issued to forbid something. In my opinion is wordy.
(D) and (E) Probably a correct form for the use of the Past Perfect "had been broken" should be...so many windows had been broken before people were hurt that....Here we have the conjunction "and" and we should have the same tenses
(Past Tense Simple).

In (A), I consider "forbidding" represents the purpose of why they issued an ordinance.

Hope this helps.

limestone wrote:In the old Dutch settlement of Beverwyck - now Albany, New York - so many people were hurt and windows broken that an ordinance was issued forbidding golf in the streets.

A. broken that an ordinance was issued forbidding
B. broken that they issued an ordinance to forbid
C. were broken that they issued an ordinance forbidding
D. had been broken that an ordinance was issued to forbid
E. had been broken that an ordinance was issued forbidding

[spoiler]OA: A[/spoiler]

[spoiler]I've read the explanation, but found myself unsatisfied. Can we use "issued to forbid"?[/spoiler]

In real English, things can be "issued to forbid." On the GMAT, it's more wordy than the alternatives.

limestone wrote:In the old Dutch settlement of Beverwyck - now Albany, New York - so many people were hurt and windows broken that an ordinance was issued forbidding golf in the streets.

A. broken that an ordinance was issued forbidding
B. broken that they issued an ordinance to forbid
C. were broken that they issued an ordinance forbidding
D. had been broken that an ordinance was issued to forbid
E. had been broken that an ordinance was issued forbidding

[spoiler]OA: A[/spoiler]

[spoiler]I've read the explanation, but found myself unsatisfied. Can we use "issued to forbid"?[/spoiler]

Why not C but
It maintains parallelism...were hurt ..were broken

I felt it was between A and C
and A is right as C is 'they' in it which doesnt has clear antecedent.
In C,trap is
were hurt ......and were broken
parallel

thanks

Did not get why not 'windows were broken'

In the old Dutch settlement of Beverwyck - now Albany, New York - so many people were hurt and windows broken that an ordinance was issued forbidding golf in the streets.

A. broken that an ordinance was issued forbidding
B. broken that they issued an ordinance to forbid
C. were broken that they issued an ordinance forbidding
D. had been broken that an ordinance was issued to forbid
E. had been broken that an ordinance was issued forbidding


My go:

I have eliminated B and C as the word "they" is not having a proper reference -( may be the local govt)
"had been" ...hmmm.. people and windows were "harassed" at the same time.. so no 'perfects'
By no choice I chose A but I wanted option A to be either
"people were hurt and windows were broken, so an ordinance was issued"
"so many windows broken and people hurt"

IMO A, Was confused with C, but then C had dangling "They"

Options A and C were quite close. Though i ended up marking C , but now I think that A makes more sense.