water purification methods

[cartera]

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


Why C is correct? as far as I know, the correct idiom is prohibit x from y, what is wrong with E? I think in E would is the future in the past

[RonPurewal]

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.

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.

[lawrencewwh]

Ron, thanks a lot for your help.

although C is offical answer, I think C has 2 problems as below:

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.


C. prohibiting disclosure of its water purification methods to any company

I think in C,
1,
"its" refers back to
"a confidentiality agreement" ,
and refers to "the company" as well?

2,

"Any company " should revised to " any other company"？
otherwise, "Any company " includes "the company" itself?

[stock.mojo11]

Ron, thanks a lot for your help.

although C is offical answer, I think C has 2 problems as below:

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.


C. prohibiting disclosure of its water purification methods to any company

I think in C,
1,
"its" refers back to
"a confidentiality agreement" ,
and refers to "the company" as well?

2,

"Any company " should revised to " any other company"？
otherwise, "Any company " includes "the company" itself?

Before Ron whips again with the "Dont Question the correct answer" stick, I will say that C is indeed correct. All others are wrong. C is the best of the lot. In SC, some times you have to just pick the best of the lot. Clearly in B & D, them does not agree with the subject employee.

A & E uses required that.

require X to do Y is a correct idiom

require that is also a correct idiom.

Using both is not an option.

Also when you use a subjunctive, the infinitive should not be used

[StaceyKoprince]

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]

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..

required each employee .. to .. sign agreement (that ..). In this that is not linked to required, but just a limiting relative pronoun. Is it correct?

[RonPurewal]

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..

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".

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).

[zhuyujun]

Why A is wrong here? It is using prohibit that ... be disclosed to.... .

Can anyone please explain the errors in A? Thanks!

[jenny_jingjie]

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.

Then, can "forbid" use the similar way as "prohibit", that is "forbid sth." and "forbid sth.to do" are both right?

Thx

[tim]

no, you cannot forbid something the same way you can prohibit something. however, something can be forbidden just as something can be prohibited. you'll just want to familiarize yourself with the different proper uses of idioms - and more importantly, learn which uses are wrong..

[xyin]

What's wrong with A? "A" has already used the correct subjunctive.
"C" has some mistakes on the idiom, I think. "Prohibit ... to ... " is wrong. the correct is "prohibit ... from doing"

[RonPurewal]

Then, can "forbid" use the similar way as "prohibit", that is "forbid sth." and "forbid sth.to do" are both right?

you can say both "forbid X" and "prohibit X", where X is the activity that's forbidden/prohibited.
for instance, all of the following are correct:
the law prohibits skateboarding in the park.
the law forbids skateboarding in the park.
skateboarding in the park is prohibited by law.
skateboarding in the park is forbidden by law.

on the other hand, when the idiom contains both the activity and the person doing the activity, that's when the two expressions start to get different:
the law prohibits teens from skateboarding in the park --> correct.
the law prohibits teens to skateboard in the park --> incorrect.
the law forbids teens from skateboarding in the park --> the OG doesn't lay down the law conclusively here, as far as i know, but probably incorrect.
the law forbids teens to skateboard in the park --> correct.

interestingly, the OG verbal supplement contains a discussion of "forbid" in problem #47, even though "forbid" is not used in that problem at all.

[tim]

Just in case anyone is paying close attention, you'll notice that Ron and i disagree on appropriate use of "forbid". However, the important thing to keep in mind is that both of our interpretations will get you to the correct answer for every question the GMAT has published. Maybe someday down the road they will settle the question for us, but for now just remember that each of these words has its correct uses and you need to be familiar with how each is used on actual GMAT questions..

[kvitkod]

Could you comment on below please

[quote][/What's wrong with A? "A" has already used the correct subjunctive.
"C" has some mistakes on the idiom, I think. "Prohibit ... to ... " is wrong. the correct is "prohibit ... from doing"quote]

[RonPurewal]

What's wrong with A? "A" has already used the correct subjunctive.

nope -- "prohibit" is prohibited (heh) from taking the subjunctive.
(if that comment confuses you, here's what it means -- you can't use the subjunctive with "prohibit").

sorry, but, unfortunately, this stuff is idiomatic. prohibit that X do Y is incorrect; the correct form is prohibit X from doing Y.

do you speak spanish?
i ask because, although "prohibit that X do Y" is incorrect in english, its word-for-word translation is a correct construction in spanish.