stat #A says he called for 3 entities (houses, child facilites and cluster community)
but we need to find an option which calls for only 1 entity 'house with child facilites'

similarly # E : house cannot include communal eating but it can include a kitchen

D sounds less disturbing.. I see all others say include "lions in category reptilles"

Charlotte Perkins Gilman, a late nineteenth-century feminist, called for urban apartment houses including child-care facilities and clustered suburban houses including communal eating and social facilities.

A. including child-care facilities and clustered suburban houses including communal eating and social facilities.
B. that included child-care facilities, and for clustered suburban houses to include communal eating and social facilities.
C. with child-care facilities included and for clustered suburban houses to include communal eating and social facilities.
D. that included child-care facilities and for culustered suburban houses with communal eating and social facilities.-------> i find this option to be parallel.
E. to include child-care facilities and for culustered suburban houses with communal eating and social facilities included.

whats the OA????

Answer is D

IMO D,

I see a parallelism construction here...called for...thats why AND should be followed by FOR

So drop Op A

placement of "included" in Op C and Op E seems awkward...so drop these choices

B/w Op B and Op D...." houses to include "...." houses with communal eating and social facilities"
2nd one seems more clear hence Op D

guys,
please let me knw if my reasoning makes sense.

looking at options B,C,E - that included seems to say the houses already include the mentioned facilities and Charlotte is calling for houses that included those things and the next paralle part seems to suggest the houses 'to include' communal eating->means they dnt have it till now and shes asking them to include , wht i mean to say is one part says they have certain things, other parallel part asks houses to include certain thngs.

option D atleast maintains the parallelism by calling for houses which already have child care facilities and communal eating.

but i doubt is this the original intent of the sentence, Charlotte actaully is calling for houses to include the mentioned thgns (they dnt already have them).

im i taking this in a wrong way?

Guys,

Preposition + NOUN + INFINITIVE

This construction is almost always wrong in GMAT as GMAT consider this construction unidiomatic..

This is more point to chop off Op B which seems strong contender

@Rohu

Good point...this exactly what i thought when i was solving this question but explanation gonna be lengthy so didn't raise...but now let me put my thought...

see two cases are possible if you try to think in terms of meaning..i explain with an example..

Case 1:-- CALLED FOR HOUSES THAT INCLUDED...what does this means??

suppose you are a social worker and u are demanding houses for the poor people who are living on streets...means the people don't have houses rite now and u are demanding houses that included..bla bla blaa...somewhere suggest kind off u r demanding furnished houses

Case 2:-- HOUSES TO INCLUDE...what does this means??

Again consider you are a social worker...and some people already have houses but the houses doesn't include facilities such as water etc...so u r demanding houses to include..bla bla bla..

U see the difference...
case 1--demanding houses including things
case 2:-- houses are already there but u demanding houses to include certain things..

As i mentioned in my post above this post...why Op B is wrong you can refer to that..

thanks Atul,
so
Preposition + NOUN + INFINITIVE

the above is true for all cases?or any exceptions as such.

rohu27 wrote:thanks Atul,
so
Preposition + NOUN + INFINITIVE

the above is true for all cases?or any exceptions as such.

Wel i read this rule somewhere and you can understand that being as a non native speakers i didn't go in depth to understand the validity but yes i do experiment that thing in the questions...this rule i find valid, but to my surprise after your post i try to find some explanation of this question on manhattan forum...there Ron state two things

1. Op D is also not correct though he didn't mention the correct answer
2. he suggest that the rule i mentioned is not hard and fast

follow the link
https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/pre ... t3407.html

thanks for the link Atul, may be this rule can be used on exam whn u r short on time and have to do some quick decisions instead of applying ur thoughts. (provided i remember the rule at the moment)
Sahil's notes does contain the rule and this question.

ccassel wrote:Charlotte Perkins Gilman, a late nineteenth-century feminist, called for urban apartment houses...

A. including child-care facilities and clustered suburban houses including communal eating and social facilities.
B. that included child-care facilities, and for clustered suburban houses to include communal eating and social facilities.
C. with child-care facilities included and for clustered suburban houses to include communal eating and social facilities.
D. that included child-care facilities and for culustered suburban houses with communal eating and social facilities.
E. to include child-care facilities and for culustered suburban houses with communal eating and social facilities included.

How would you explain the correct answer?

I received a PM asking me to comment.

In A, including child-care facilities and clustered suburban houses implies -- incorrectly -- that the urban apartment houses would be including the clustered suburban houses. Eliminate A.

B, C and E all lack paralellism:

B: that included...to include.
C: included...to include.
E: to include...included.

Eliminate B, C and E.

In D, called for and that included are in the same tense, implying that the urban apartment houses already included the child-care facilities when Gilman called for these houses. The intended meaning of the sentence is that Gilman called for urban apartment houses that would include child-care facilities. Eliminate D.

I would ignore this question. None of the answer choices would be correct on the GMAT.