<p>Page 538 in the Blue Book (Test 2, section 6). Question 21.</p>
<p>The new system, which uses remote cameras in the catching of speeding motorists, may undermine the police department's authority.</p>
<p>The book says B, but I thought it was no error. There doesn't need to be a direct causal relationship between the cameras and the catching. They could clearly just be a tool, just like you'd say "Police use guns in the catching of criminals."</p>
<p>I'd really appreciate an explanation.</p>
<p>I was presented with this question a couple months ago, and I gave an explanation. (It had to do with indicating the causation and economizing the diction.) The issue has nagged me some, though; I wasn’t really satistfied with my explanation. What does the College Board say?</p>
<p>Shouldn’t it be “to catch”?</p>
<p>
I couldn’t find it in the consolidated list. Is your explanation on the forum so I can add it to the list?</p>
<p>
The Blue Book says the answer is B, but I don’t have an explanation.</p>
<p>
Yes, that would be the logical replacement. However, I am still unable to come up with a sound grammatical explanation of <em>why</em> this must be so.</p>
<p>I agree with hahalolk. </p>
<p>“which uses cameras to catch motorists” would be a better than “which uses cameras in the catching of motorists”</p>
<p>the original form is extremely awkward</p>
<p>This was my explanation last year:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>silverturtle: That makes sense, but it still bugs me.</p>
<p>As is, how do we know the sentence is supposed to be conveying causation, rather than correlation?</p>
<p>Thanks for the help, guys!</p>
<p>Another explanation could be that the definite article, “the,” indicates a specific but nonetheless exophoric referrent, whereas the sentence intends to refer generally to this type of catching. Omission of the article would necessitate, likewise, an omission of the preposition, which would help in economization.</p>
<p>since “in” and “to” can both be used to indicate purpose (e.g., “i do it in honor of…” or “i do it to honor…”), the correct one is the one that is more befitting and terse. “in the catching” has no subjective referent; it only mentions the action itself. “to catch” does; the cameras literally catch the criminals (on tape).</p>
<p>I tried to look for this question in the Blue Book… it wasn’t there. Is this the second edition or the first? In the first edition, Test 2 Section 6 isn’t even a writing section…</p>
<p>
Sorry, I gave the wrong test/page. It’s actually on page 539, in section 6 of test 3.</p>
<p>Here’s what collegeboard says:</p>
<p>Explanation for Correct Answer B : </p>
<p>The error in the sentence occurs at (B), where there is wordiness. The phrase “in the catching of” can be reduced to the more idiomatic two-word phrase “to catch.”</p>
<p>Apparently wordiness is enough for collegeboard to say there’s an error…</p>
<p>
That’s a scary thought. Since wordiness is, to some extent, arbitrary, one could easily mark many other sentences as wrong simply because they are not as brief as they could be.</p>
<p>Well, that’s not a satisfying explanation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s nothing idiomatic about an infinitive verb phrase.</p>
<p>Wow that’s a terrible explanation. It seems like CB says “idiomatically” a lot when they have no clue why one is answer right.
CB test writer one: Do you know why that’s the right choice?
CB #2: No clue, it just is.
CB #1: Eh, we’ll say it’s idiomatic.</p>