221. (26471-!-item-!-188;#058&002027) (GWD-12-Q34)
In an attempt to guarantee the security of its innovative water purification method, the company required each employee to sign a confidentiality agreement prohibiting that its water purification methods be disclosed to companies using an analogous purification process.
A. prohibiting that its water purification methods be disclosed to companies
B. prohibiting them from the disclosing of its water purification methods to any company
C. prohibiting disclosure of its water purification methods to any company
D. that would prohibit them from disclosure of its water purification methods to companies
E. that would prohibit its water purification methods to be disclosed to a company
...because there's nothing wrong with it.
heh.
you are correct that "prohibit X from doing Y" is a proper idiom. but remember that, in many cases, there's not just _one_ proper idiomatic usage for a given word or phrase; in other words, just because you know ONE correct idiom doesn't mean that all OTHER usages are wrong.
there are plenty of idiomatic constructions that exist in more than one way. (sometimes the different versions have differing meanings, but the point remains: just because you know one form, that doesn't mean that all other forms are incorrect.)
in the case of "prohibit", you can also just prohibit an activity (noun or gerund).
period.
i can prohibit smoking in my house. in this case, "smoking in my house" is the direct object of "prohibit", and there's no "from" anywhere because i don't mention who's smoking.
--> i can prohibit smoking
--> i can prohibit smokers from lighting up
both correct.
replace "smoking in my house" with "disclosure of...", and you're good to go.
ironically, (e) is incorrect for the exact reason you thought (c) was incorrect: it doesn't use "prohibit" correctly.
you can't use "prohibit" with an infinitive, as (e) tries to do, so (e) is wrong.
We don't need "any other company." The full description is "any company using an analogous purification process" (don't forget about that non-underlined stuff!). The company in question is using its own purification process, not an analogous, or similar, purification process. The prohibition only applies to companies using a similar process.
On the "its" pronoun in choice C. An agreement can't prohibit disclosure of its methods... and agreement is just a paper contract. It doesn't have any methods. So logically, it wouldn't make sense to use "agreement" as the antecedent. Structurally, its is possessive, agreement is an object, and company is a subject. So, no big structural expectations in terms of the match. I agree that it's not the most clear pronoun-antecedent match in the world, but pronouns can be fuzzy enough that I would not choose based on this. I would go look for other errors. And - look at that - the other 4 all have clear errors.
it's not. "TO be" is an infinitive. in subjunctive constructions, you don't have the "to".
the point here, though, is that this is unidiomatic. the proper way to use "prohibit" with an action verb is "prohibit X FROM VERBing".
correct, "that" is modifying "agreement", and is not at all connected to "required".
i think this is what you mean by "limiting relative pronoun", although i'm not 100% sure.**
--
**you should NOT be concerned with classifying things this minutely. in fact, classifying things too much with names ("limiting relative pronoun", etc.) will HINDER your efforts.
make sure that what you're emphasizing is "that modifies agreement" (i.e., the FUNCTION of the constructions you see), and NOT "that is called a limiting relative pronoun (the NAMES of the constructions, which absolutely don't matter at all).
In an attempt to guarantee the security of its innovative water purification method, the company required each employee to sign a confidentiality agreement prohibiting that its water purification methods be disclosed to companies using an analogous purification process.
A. prohibiting that its water purification methods be disclosed to companies
B. prohibiting them from the disclosing of its water purification methods to any company
C. prohibiting disclosure of its water purification methods to any company
D. that would prohibit them from disclosure of its water purification methods to companies
E. that would prohibit its water purification methods to be disclosed to a company
cartera wrote:
Why C is correct?
...because there's nothing wrong with it.
heh.
you are correct that "prohibit X from doing Y" is a proper idiom. but remember that, in many cases, there's not just _one_ proper idiomatic usage for a given word or phrase; in other words, just because you know ONE correct idiom doesn't mean that all OTHER usages are wrong.
there are plenty of idiomatic constructions that exist in more than one way. (sometimes the different versions have differing meanings, but the point remains: just because you know one form, that doesn't mean that all other forms are incorrect.)
in the case of "prohibit", you can also just prohibit an activity (noun or gerund).
period.
i can prohibit smoking in my house. in this case, "smoking in my house" is the direct object of "prohibit", and there's no "from" anywhere because i don't mention who's smoking.
--> i can prohibit smoking
--> i can prohibit smokers from lighting up
both correct.
replace "smoking in my house" with "disclosure of...", and you're good to go.
cartera wrote:
as far as I know, the correct idiom is prohibit x from y, what is wrong with E?
ironically, (e) is incorrect for the exact reason you thought (c) was incorrect: it doesn't use "prohibit" correctly.
you can't use "prohibit" with an infinitive, as (e) tries to do, so (e) is wrong.
We don't need "any other company." The full description is "any company using an analogous purification process" (don't forget about that non-underlined stuff!). The company in question is using its own purification process, not an analogous, or similar, purification process. The prohibition only applies to companies using a similar process.
On the "its" pronoun in choice C. An agreement can't prohibit disclosure of its methods... and agreement is just a paper contract. It doesn't have any methods. So logically, it wouldn't make sense to use "agreement" as the antecedent. Structurally, its is possessive, agreement is an object, and company is a subject. So, no big structural expectations in terms of the match. I agree that it's not the most clear pronoun-antecedent match in the world, but pronouns can be fuzzy enough that I would not choose based on this. I would go look for other errors. And - look at that - the other 4 all have clear errors.
devinderpsingh wrote:
that would prohibit its water purification methods to be disclosed to a company
I thought for a while and confused about option E. It doesn't seem to be a subjunctive construction..
I thought for a while and confused about option E. It doesn't seem to be a subjunctive construction..
it's not. "TO be" is an infinitive. in subjunctive constructions, you don't have the "to".
the point here, though, is that this is unidiomatic. the proper way to use "prohibit" with an action verb is "prohibit X FROM VERBing".
Quote:
required each employee .. to .. sign agreement (that ..). In this that is not linked to required, but just a limiting relative pronoun. Is it correct?
correct, "that" is modifying "agreement", and is not at all connected to "required".
i think this is what you mean by "limiting relative pronoun", although i'm not 100% sure.**
--
**you should NOT be concerned with classifying things this minutely. in fact, classifying things too much with names ("limiting relative pronoun", etc.) will HINDER your efforts.
make sure that what you're emphasizing is "that modifies agreement" (i.e., the FUNCTION of the constructions you see), and NOT "that is called a limiting relative pronoun (the NAMES of the constructions, which absolutely don't matter at all).
