BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Correct usage of Infinitives

Expert replies
by sungoal » Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:24 am
Hi,

Please help me understand the below sentence:

For the Stegosaurus, a dinosaur from the late Jurassic period, the seventeen bony plates embedded in its back were necessary elements for survival, to regulate its temperature throughout its bus-sized body and to protect it from much larger carnivores.

Can anybody please tell why the use of infinitives in the above sentence is incorrect?

Isn't "were necessary elements" is implied with "to regulate and to protect" and therefore maintain parallelism in the sentence?
Join the discussion
Source: — Sentence Correction |

by Ilana@EconomistGMAT » Sun Aug 14, 2011 3:16 am
The problem is not the use of the infinitive per se, but the lack of parallelism between the prepositions: for survival, to regulate its temperature throughout its bus-sized body and to protect it

The sentence should either use three items that begin with 'for' or three items that begin with 'to' (such as the infinitive).

So a list of three infinitives: 'to survive, to regulate, and to protect' - would correct the damaged parallelism.
Join the discussion

by sungoal » Sun Aug 14, 2011 3:27 am
cant we consider for survival, to regulate and to protect as prepositional phrases?
Join the discussion

by sungoal » Sun Aug 14, 2011 3:28 am
cant we consider for survival, to regulate and to protect as prepositional phrases?
Join the discussion

by Ilana@EconomistGMAT » Sun Aug 14, 2011 3:30 am
No. The only phrase that could be considered a prepositional phrase is 'for survival'. A prepositional phrase is made up of a preposition + a noun. Survival is a noun, so 'for survival' is a prepositional phrase. The remaining two items in the list are not prepositional phrases because 'regulate' and 'protect' are not nouns, but the base form of the verb. As you correctly pointed out in your original question 'to protect' and 'to regulate' are both infinitives - verbal forms.
Join the discussion

by e-GMAT » Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:24 am
Great discussion. Even though the original has been clarified by @Ilana, I am tempted to respond to the PM, since this sentence exemplifies the importance of understanding the meaning appropriately.

For the Stegosaurus, a dinosaur from the late Jurassic period, the seventeen bony plates embedded in its back were necessary elements for survival, to regulate its temperature throughout its bus-sized body and to protect it from much larger carnivores.

The sentence states that 17 bony plates embedded in the back of the specific dinosaur were necessary elements for survival. This is the core message.
Then the sentence goes on to explain how these bony plates helped with the survival
1: these plates helped with regulation of temperature of its body
2: these plates helped by protecting it from larger carnivores

So as you can see "to regulate" and "to protect" really are the two elements that explains how these 17 bony plates were essential for survival. So in a way you can say that these two elements explain the preceding clause and hence I am suspecting the correct construction here is regulating...and protecting...- so comma + verb-ing construction. (please post the complete sentence here)

Now from meaning perspective, why is "to regulate" and "to protect" incorrect.
Lets remove the fluff from the sentence and review it:

17 bony plates were necessary elements for survival to regulate the body temperature and to protect from larger animals. - This sentence implies that the purpose of survival was "to regulate the temperature...". This is not correct. The logical meaning here is as explained above - regulating and protecting explain how these parts were necessary for survival.

17 bony plates were required to regulate the body temperature and to protect from larger animals. - This sentence is correct. It implies that the purpose of these 17 bony plates was two fold - to regulate the temperature and to protect from larger animals.

Thanks,
Payal
Join the discussion

by sungoal » Mon Aug 15, 2011 6:45 pm
e-GMAT wrote:Great discussion. Even though the original has been clarified by @Ilana, I am tempted to respond to the PM, since this sentence exemplifies the importance of understanding the meaning appropriately.

For the Stegosaurus, a dinosaur from the late Jurassic period, the seventeen bony plates embedded in its back were necessary elements for survival, to regulate its temperature throughout its bus-sized body and to protect it from much larger carnivores.

The sentence states that 17 bony plates embedded in the back of the specific dinosaur were necessary elements for survival. This is the core message.
Then the sentence goes on to explain how these bony plates helped with the survival
1: these plates helped with regulation of temperature of its body
2: these plates helped by protecting it from larger carnivores

So as you can see "to regulate" and "to protect" really are the two elements that explains how these 17 bony plates were essential for survival. So in a way you can say that these two elements explain the preceding clause and hence I am suspecting the correct construction here is regulating...and protecting...- so comma + verb-ing construction. (please post the complete sentence here)

Now from meaning perspective, why is "to regulate" and "to protect" incorrect.
Lets remove the fluff from the sentence and review it:

17 bony plates were necessary elements for survival to regulate the body temperature and to protect from larger animals. - This sentence implies that the purpose of survival was "to regulate the temperature...". This is not correct. The logical meaning here is as explained above - regulating and protecting explain how these parts were necessary for survival.

17 bony plates were required to regulate the body temperature and to protect from larger animals. - This sentence is correct. It implies that the purpose of these 17 bony plates was two fold - to regulate the temperature and to protect from larger animals.

Thanks,
Payal

thanks for the information payal.

But I still have one doubt though already explained by Ilalna, but still not clear.

Why this sentence is wrong if we consider it this way:

were necessary elements for survival, were necessary elements to regulate and were necessary elements to protect

As "were necessary elements" is common, so we can consider it as "were necessary elements for survival, to regulate and to protect" ....

Could you clear my above mentioned doubt?
Join the discussion

by e-GMAT » Mon Aug 15, 2011 7:16 pm
...were necessary elements for survival, were necessary elements to regulate and were necessary elements to protect...

Per your analysis the above sentence has a parallel list.

Lets look at the list:
were necessary elements
1: for survival,
2: to regulate and
3: to protect

The list above is not parallel since these elements are neither logically nor grammatically parallel. Logical part I have covered in my post above. And grammatical part has been covered by Ilana.

1: for survival, - Prepositional Phrase - preposition + noun
2: to regulate and - to verb or an infinitive
3: to protect - to verb or an infinitive

Element 1 is not parallel to elements 2 and 3.
Join the discussion

by lunarpower » Thu Aug 25, 2011 2:03 am
sungoal wrote:Hi,

Please help me understand the below sentence:

For the Stegosaurus, a dinosaur from the late Jurassic period, the seventeen bony plates embedded in its back were necessary elements for survival, to regulate its temperature throughout its bus-sized body and to protect it from much larger carnivores.

Can anybody please tell why the use of infinitives in the above sentence is incorrect?

Isn't "were necessary elements" is implied with "to regulate and to protect" and therefore maintain parallelism in the sentence?
i received a pm about this thread.

where did you get this sentence? it's very badly written, so i would imagine that the source from which it came is going to be questionable pretty much across the board.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Join the discussion

• Page 1 of 1