to include - correct usage

[edaxl]

Hello, I am looking for some help from the Manhattan Instructors. I have been using the MGMT SC book (3rd Edition) for learning grammar. I would love to get feedback on the following two issues that I have seen raised on other forums but am still not convinced.

1. 'to include' is not an acceptable usage on GMAT
2. preposition + noun + participle is not acceptable on GMAT


I am including the link to the SC question. Please see Erin's explanation.

http://www.urch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=358

I would really like to understand the proper grammar usage here and why. Also I did try to search for this on these forums but did not find anything.

Thanks for your help.

[esledge]

1) The child with the woman sweeping the steps is our neighbor.
2) The child who is with the woman sweeping the steps is our neighbor.
3) The child with the woman who is sweeping the steps is our neighbor.
4) The child who is with the woman who is sweeping the steps is our neighbor.

I think any of the above are acceptable, and #1 may even be the best of the bunch. I don't think we can issue a broad rule against (preposition + noun + participle), as seen in #1 and #2, but I don't think that Erin intended to, either (see the link provided). He only said that (preposition + noun + participle) is almost always wrong on the GMAT--there are a lot of qualifiers in that statement! The GMAT tends to prefer relative clauses, which tend to modify more clearly and cleanly. You should always scan the answer choices for your options, and between a relative clause and (preposition + noun + participle) choose the lesser of two evils.

As for whether the GMAT frowns on "to include" because it's unidiomatic, no, I don't think so. It was wrong in that question (again, see link), due to poor parallelism that leads to an unintended meaning:

Gilman called (for urban apartment houses...and for clustered suburban houses) to include eating and social facilities.
Note that I have placed a parallel structure in ( ). The sentence could be read to mean "Gillman called for X and Y to both include eating and social facilities."

The intended meaning is that Gillman called for two things:
1) urban apartment houses that included child-care facilities
2) clustered suburban houses with communal eating and social facilities

The "with" makes better parallelism: two types of houses, each described by their own noun modifier (relative clause in 1), prepositional phrase in 2)).

Here's a separate example of how "to include" could be used correctly:
The petition called for the city council to include the library budget in the city's plans for next year.