Abuse of "provide for"

I always believed that uses of the phrase "provide for" in such sentences as the following three are considered wrong and they should be replaced by "provide." I have been seeing and hearing them so often, however, that I am not so sure anymore.

Would you say they are used properly below?

(a) The facilities in Boulder provides for sweeping views of the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains.

(b) The earthquake forecasts produced using the Gutenberg-Richter law provide for a good general guide to the hazard in an area.

(c) Statistical methods like these can provide for crude but usable forecasts.

Thank you.

Solution 1:

I'd use "provide" without "for" in all cases.

Generally you "provide something" where you are talking about supplying a good or product, but "provide for someone" or "provide for some situation or eventuality". Views, guides, and forecasts are things that are provided, not eventualities. Because they're somewhat abstract it's a bit less clear than providing a lunch or a reference. You provide for an outcome (because that's an eventuality) but provide a forecast of an outcome (which is a thing that happens to be about an eventuality). But "provide" without "for" is commonly used with abstract things: "providing privacy" or "security".

Source is Merriam-Webster, which maybe makes it clearer:

• https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/provide
• https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/provide%20for