Not one of the potential investors is expected to make an offer to buy

gmatwhiz GMATNinja egmat can you please post detailed explanation for this question ?

gmatwhiz GMATNinja egmat can you please post detailed explanation for this question ?

did not understand why were and not was ? egmat GMATNinja

Hello Aannie,

We hope this finds you well.

Having gone through the question and your query, we believe we can resolve your doubts.

Here, the use of "were" is correct in reference to the singular noun "deal", as the subjunctive mood is in use; the phrase "if the deal were not to be concluded" refers to a hypothetical scenario, so the subjunctive mood is preferred, and this sentence uses the construction “wishful trigger (if) + plural form of the verb (were)”.

Remember, “wishful trigger (if) + plural form of the verb” is a correct, subjunctive usage; for example: "If I were an athlete, I would be super fit.". In an imaginative context, subjunctive mood is a preferred usage for conveying the intended meaning effectively.

To understand the concept of "Subjunctive Mood" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~20 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

(A) is expected to make an offer to buy First Interstate Bank until a merger agreement is signed that includes a provision for penalties if the deal were
The meaning is perfect therefore let us hang on to it

(B) is expected to make an offer for buying First Interstate Bank until they sign a merger agreement including a provision for penalties if the deal was
they is not having the right reference therefore out

(C) is expected to make an offer to buy First Interstate Bank until a merger agreement be signed by them with a provision for penalties if the deal were
be sign by them of style and not making much sense therefore out

(D) are expected to make an offer for buying First Interstate Bank until it signs a merger agreement with a provision for penalties included if the deal was
it isn't the right reference therefore out

(E) are expected to be making an offer to buy First Interstate Bank until they sign a merger agreement including a provision for penalties if the deal were
Similar reasoning as B

THerefore IMO A

This one gives us some juicy decision points. First, we need to determine if the main verb of the first clause is "is" or "are." The subject here is "not one," which is singular, so we want "is." Kill (D) and (E).

Next, we need to determine if the main verb of the second clause is "was" or "were." Because we see "if" we know we're talking about a hypothetical case, meaning we want "were." So (B) is out.

In (C), we get the phrase, "signed by them." We know that "them" must refer to a plural noun, but there's nothing here that will work. The only earlier noun that seems to be a candidate is "investors," but that doesn't make sense. How could investors sign a merger agreement before they invested in that same merger?

It makes far more sense to suggest that someone else is signing the merger agreement. This is what we get in (A), which gets rid of the pronoun entirely. So (A) is our winner.

I hope that helps!

GMATNinja, can you please help to explain the usage of past tense ''if they were''. I did not pick ans choice A right away because of the usage of past tense in ''if they were''. Past tense does not match to present tense used in the previous clause.

Hello tkorzhan1995,

We hope this finds you well.

Having gone through the question and your query, we believe we can resolve your doubt.

The past tense verb "were" is correct here, as it is part of a conditional phrase "if the deal were not to be concluded" that refers to the noun "penalties"; logically, "penalties" would be incurred only after the deal was not concluded, so from the perspective of the "penalties", this action is in the past.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

ExpertsGlobal5, why if it is referring back to penalties, past tense should be used?

It's perfectly reasonable to change verb tense in a sentence, so long as the tense shift is logical.

For instance:

"Tim loses his mind when he discovers muddy footprints that were tracked all over the kitchen by his feral children."

Notice that the verb in the first clause, loses, is present tense, and the verb in the modifier, "were tracked" is past tense. But that makes sense here. The present-tense action is a generality, giving us info about how Tim responds in a certain situation. The past-tense action is part of a modifier describing "footprints," and it seems reasonable to write about footprints that were tracked in the past. So this is fine.

Same deal in (A). The first clause in (A) is about present expectations, so we want the verb to capture this. And "If they were" is part of a modifier describing "agreements." Because this modifier offers a hypothetical scenario, "were" is appropriate here.

The takeaway: there's no rule that we can't have multiple tenses in one sentence! Just make sure that the tense shifts make sense when you see them.

I hope that helps!

Hello tkorzhan1995,

We hope this finds you well.

The past tense must be used because the penalties would only be incurred after the deal was not concluded; thus, when talking about the penalties, it is assumed that the hypothetical situation of the deal not concluding has already occurred, meaning past tense must be used to refer to the action.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Hi i remember the SANAM Rule to which, if the Some, Any, None, All, More / Most from Manhatan prep guide
If the noun is a countable noun (nouns for which the plural form exists), then the verb is plural.
If the noun is an uncountable noun (nouns for which only the singular forms exists), then the verb is singular. ---> and in this case None of the investors - should be followed by ARE? hmm- would anyone be able to explain this?

Hello rdrdrd1201,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, this sentence does not actually use the word "none", rather it uses the pronoun phrase "Not one"; since the pronoun "one" is singular, the singular verb phrase "is expected" must be used.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

in choice A]

''that includes a provision for penalties if the deal were''

when if conditional is used in past tense, should not we say 'included' instead of includes?

isn't this a rule?

First of all, nothing in this sentence is in the past, because the sentence describes hypothetical future possibilities: ("Not one investor is expected to make an offer until...")
The past tense, therefore, would just be wrong.



"If the deal were..." is called the subjunctive. It's used for hypothetical situations in the present or future. (For past hypothetical situations that didn't actually happen / come true, the subjunctive form is "If the deal had been...")

We know this isn't a past-tense verb, for two reasons:
1/ The context rules out any past timeframe (see above).
2/ "Deal" is singular, so the past-tense form is "the deal was".

Hi GMATNinja , andrewng , KarishmaB , MartyTargetTestPrep and all other experts,
Why does this sentence in need of a subjunctive mood (option A)? It's not presenting any hypothetical or non-real scenario. It should have been a simple conditional statement.

It is discussing the hypothetical case of "the deal not concluding" in the future.

What would happen if the deal were not to be concluded? Then there would be penalties.

Look at the sentence:
Not one is expected to make an offer to buy until an agreement is signed that includes a provision for penalties if the deal were not to be concluded.

So the agreement must have a provision for penalties. When would the penalties come into play? In case the deal is not concluded (a hypothetical case in the future).