karmayogi wrote:The relative pronoun 'that' correctly refers to 'legislation' and introduces the subordinate clause. 'forbidding' looks like qualifying the action of the congress and, even if that the intention, a comma should come between 'legislation' and 'forbidding'. That eliminates options A and D.

'forbid to' is idiomatic and 'forbid from' is not. Eliminates options B and E.

logitech wrote:

karmayogi wrote:The relative pronoun 'that' correctly refers to 'legislation' and introduces the subordinate clause. 'forbidding' looks like qualifying the action of the congress and, even if that the intention, a comma should come between 'legislation' and 'forbidding'. That eliminates options A and D.

'forbid to' is idiomatic and 'forbid from' is not. Eliminates options B and E.

Karmayogi ( Cool nickname by the way ) ,

Can you please shed some lights on how you decide whether we need a THAT in a sentence. In your explanation:

Main Clause + THAT + Subordinate Clause

I understand that but I sometimes fail to apply this concept.

Thanks!

karmayogi wrote:

THAT should be used to introduce a restrictive clause. A restrictive clause is one which is essential to the meaning of a sentence – if it’s removed, the meaning of the sentence will change.

For example: I am wearing the shirt that you gifted me on my last birthday.

Now let me modify the problem sentence:

Congress has enacted legislation that for the next three years forbids state and local governments to raise taxes on connections that link consumers to the Internet, boosting online shopping.

In above sentence, first that is restricting the legislation and second that is restricting the connections. Last dependent clause “boosting online shopping” is with any that and is in verb+ing form. Here, boosting is referring to complete clause before it. Meaning, the congress’s enactment is going to boost online shopping. And if we replace the dependent clause with “that will boost online shopping” then use of that is ambiguous.