Sentence Correction

Hi All,

Can somebody please tell why "B" is not correct option in this question.

Is this not the case of subjunctive. Isn't this the example of "proposal" where uncertainty is involved. If yes, then shouldn't it be followed by "that" as is normally the case with subjunctive and given examples in Manhattan too ?

Judge Bonham denied a motion to allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day instead of to confine them to a hotel.

(A) to allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day instead of to confine them to
(B) that would have allowed members of the jury to go home at the end of each day instead of confined to
(C) under which members of the jury are allowed to go home at the end of each day instead of confining them in
(D) that would allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day rather than confinement in
(E) to allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day rather than be confined to

Thanks
Mohit

imo- e

i am not sure about the subjunctive part of it..
but look at the other options..
no other option apart from E is grammatically consisitent
A is wrong because of the instead of it
B uses past tense
C has no parallelism
D is like C.. comparing a verb and a noun
E is ok

More than sticking to one concept, I think we should check if no other errors appear in the answer choices. Consider this, only option E seems to be the right answer.

no "subjunctive" case here. the judge did not allow a motion. the motion was decidedly in favour of allowing the jury to go home.

the judge denied the motion (to allow the jury........indicates the purpose of the motion). its a definite denial here, no uncertainty involved

dgr8onerip wrote:imo- e

i am not sure about the subjunctive part of it..
but look at the other options..
no other option apart from E is grammatically consisitent
A is wrong because of the instead of it
B uses past tense
C has no parallelism
D is like C.. comparing a verb and a noun
E is ok

Hi dgr8onerip,

Can you please explain a bit in more detail about "A" and "B".

A is wrong because of the instead of it
--->What is wrong with "instead of"...here ?

B uses past tense
--> What is wrong to be in past tense...sentence starts with past tense " Judge denied........"

Thanks
Mohit

scoobydooby wrote:no "subjunctive" case here. the judge did not allow a motion. the motion was decidedly in favour of allowing the jury to go home.

the judge denied the motion (to allow the jury........indicates the purpose of the motion). its a definite denial here, no uncertainty involved

Hi scoobydooby,

IMO the subject of the sentence is motion and not denial. Motion would have allowed or would not have allowed..."people to do XYZ"....

So isn't it the case of subjunctive similar to what Manhattan Verbal guide explains in Chapter-3(Verbe, Tense, Mood).

Manhattan says that various words like order, instruct etc. etc. fall under subjunctive and they involve uncertainty whether the other people will do the same ? What is the difference between "order" and "motion" as IMO both lead to some sort of change if implemented ?

Please tell what I am missing here ?

Thanks
Mohit

note the main verb is denied, motion is simply the object of the verb "denied". if you ask denied what? you get- the motion.
so denied does not lead to any subjunctive case here.


if it said:
- the judge ordered that the jury be allowed......or
- the judge motioned that the jury.........or
- the judge proposed that...(judges normally dont propose though )

we would have had a subjunctive, if the main verb was one of the above- indicating an order/instruction/request/proposal etc etc

scoobydooby wrote:note the main verb is denied, motion is simply the object of the verb "denied". if you ask denied what? you get- the motion.
so denied does not lead to any subjunctive case here.


if it said:
- the judge ordered that the jury be allowed......or
- the judge motioned that the jury.........or
- the judge proposed that...(judges normally dont propose though )

we would have had a subjunctive, if the main verb was one of the above- indicating an order/instruction/request/proposal etc etc

Thanks scoobydooby. Now "E" looks fine.

Can you please tell a bit more in detail what is wrong with "B" here ? If option "E" would not have been there....then will "B" as standalone work ?

=============================
Judge Bonham denied a motion to allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day instead of to confine them to a hotel.

(A) to allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day instead of to confine them to
(B) that would have allowed members of the jury to go home at the end of each day instead of confined to
(C) under which members of the jury are allowed to go home at the end of each day instead of confining them in
(D) that would allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day rather than confinement in
(E) to allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day rather than be confined to

B) that would have allowed members of the jury to go home at the end of each day instead of confined to

B standalone is still wrong, it is not parallel.

idiom: X instead of Y, where X and Y should be parallel.
"to go home"....is not parallel to "confined to". would have been better if it said "(to) be confined" which would have made it parallel.

also when X instead of Y is used, X and Y should be nouns.
X rather than Y is preferred to compare clauses.

B is awkward therefore

Thanks scoobydooby

en, bump it.
I have a different perspective about this SC.
If someone disagrees with me, post a reply. thanks

I think from modifer like " to allow, that would allow" can explain.
to allow as adjective to motion, so it implies people not motion itself allow memebers do sth. it is logic.
but that would allow measn motion itself can allow sth. It is not logic. So I can delete BCD
and then I will use parallelism to identify E is correct.
right?