Many builders are offering rent-to-buy programs that enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into new housing and apply part of the rent to a purchase later.

Many house builders offer rent-to-buy programs that enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing and to apply part of the rent to a purchase later.

(A) programs that enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing and to apply
(B) programs that enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into new housing and to apply
(C) programs; that enables a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into new housing, to apply
(D) programs, which enables a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into new housing, applying
(E) programs, which enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing, applying

In a lengthy sentence consisting of many phrases, it is essential to determine which phrases and words are necessary to the sentence and which words may be eliminated because they are unnecessary. The relative pronoun that correctly refers to programs and introduces the subordinate clause; family is followed by two phrases that are clear and correct. To be able to move, however, is needlessly wordy, repeating the meaning of enable, and can be reduced to to move. This creates a parallel construction in which programs ... enable a family ... to move ... and to apply.

A To be able to move is wordy; to apply is not logically parallel to the infinitive phrase (able) to move
B Correct. In this sentence, eliminating the wordy construction to be able allows to move to be parallel to to apply.
C Using a semicolon here causes that to refer too broadly o the entire previous clause rather than specifically to programs, the two infinitives should be joined by the conjunction and, not separated by a comma
D The restrictive clause following programs defines programs and must be followed by that; which incorrectly introduces a nonrestrictive clause, set off in a pair of commas, containing relevant but not critical information;
enables does not agree with the plural subject
E That introduces a restrictive clause that defines programs; which introduces a nonrestrictive clause, set off by a pair of commas, that may be dropped from the sentence; that is required here because the clause defines programs

The correct answer is B.

lunarpower wrote:

oex85 wrote:Just have a lower level (non-native) question about this question:

I mistakenly used the 2/3 split between 'that' and 'which' to arrive at option E. The reason was that I figured THE MEANING of "rent-to-buy programs" was being explained and "rent-to-buy programs that enable a family with insufficient funds..." entails some specific type of rent-to-buy program rather than rent-to-buy programs in general.

Am I just plain wrong here (fake split)?

well, you can knock out both of those choices (d/e) for very solid reasons -- subject-verb disagreement in (d), and redundancy (enable ... to be able) in (e).
i've actually never seen an official gmat problem that actually requires the student to split on the basis of "restrictive versus nonrestrictive modifier", so, from here onward, i simply wouldn't worry about that difference if i were you. if you see it in a split, don't mind it at all, unless it is literally the only difference between two choices.

in this case, it's impossible to determine whether the modifier should be restrictive or nonrestrictive without having specialized, pre-existing knowledge about how rent-to-buy programs work. the gmat will never require such knowledge of test-takers; hence this split can't be a real split.

in this case, it's impossible to determine whether the modifier should be restrictive or nonrestrictive without having specialized, pre-existing knowledge about how rent-to-buy programs work

lunarpower wrote:keep in mind that you're looking at *wrong* answers here.

in the two choices (d) and (e), "applying..." shouldn't be a modifier at all, because it doesn't actually *modify* anything in the preceding clause -- it gives another, separate aspect of the programs. (number one, the families can move into new housing; number two, the families can apply part of the rent to a later purchase. these are different things.)
so there's really no sense in nitpicking over what it can or can't modify, because it shouldn't be a modifier at all.

also, bear in mind that there is some flexibility here -- if a comma + -ING modifier follows a complex expression that has more than one subject+verb pair, then you may have to use a certain amount of common sense to distinguish what is modified.
the modifier still must modify the same rules, but could refer to either of the subject/verb combinations.

e.g.
i carried a bag containing six incubators that enclosed baby chicks, supporting them with nutrients and heat.
here, the comma -ing modifier modifies only the second subject+verb pair. shown in color:
i carried a bag containing six incubators that enclosed baby chicks, supporting them with nutrients and heat.

VS.
i dropped a bag containing six incubators that enclosed baby chicks, breaking two of them and endangering the chicks' lives.
here, the comma -ing modifier modifies the entire preceding clause. shown in color:
i dropped a bag (containing six incubators that enclosed baby chicks), breaking two of them and endangering the chicks' lives.

lunarpower wrote:

oex85 wrote:My question is if which isn't a better word to use, since we are then being told what rent-to-buy programs actually are ("...which enable a family..."). Because there is a difference between 'that' and 'which', right? Or am I just up in the blue?

well, the irony of this comment is that you can't actually determine this (i.e., "we are being told what to rent-to-buy programs actually are") without already knowing what those programs are. if you have no knowledge of such programs, then it is impossible to tell for sure whether this is a definition or a refinement.

in any case, the best -- and simplest -- advice is this:
the GMAT will in general NOT test the difference between "restrictive" and "nonrestrictive" modifiers.
obviously, both types of modifiers are used extensively on the test -- but i don't recall ever seeing a question on which the difference between the two was actually tested. therefore, if you see a split between a restrictive modifier and a nonrestrictive modifier, your best bet is to ignore it.

Brian@VeritasPrep wrote:Hey guys,

Great discussion - a few thoughts here:


Congress took great strides toward a balanced budget, raising the debt ceiling but also repealing many upper-class tax cuts.

Here, "raising" and "repealing" modify the whole action of taking strides toward a balanced budget. You'd call this an "adverbial modifier" - the -ing word takes on the role of an adverb, not modifying the noun but rather the entire action.

Brian showed his political leanings, using a grammatical example to showcase his desires for upcoming legislation.

Again, the -ing modifier here, "using" modifies the entire action, not just the subject of the sentence.

So... in this sentence, "applying part of the rent" describes HOW the program enables these families to move into new housing. "Applying" describes the action "enable".

2) So it's not "applying" as a modifier that's wrong in D or E. Actually, I'd prefer that phrasing in D or E if it weren't for fatal flaws:

D - uses "enables" (singular) as the verb for "programs" (plural)
E - uses really redundant phrasing: "enables families...to be able to"

So I guess you do have to go with B here, but I could easily see this question rewritten such that it takes advantage of the fact that the second action - applying rent to a later downpayment - is really what makes the first - affording a new house - possible.

1) As arghya05 said, the -ing modifiers can modify an entire clause or action, and that's how that modifier "applying..." is working here. A few examples:

e.g., let's say that harry is a handicapped individual who only has one leg, and that amy is a particularly mean person:
amy made fun of harry, standing on one leg.
it's a lot easier to see how this sentence works.