NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 27 Apr 2024, 23:47 It is currently 27 Apr 2024, 23:47
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

Sentence Explanation

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
User avatar
farukqmul
Manager
Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2012
Posts: 76
Own Kudos [?]: 220 [0]
Given Kudos: 134
Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 460 Q38 V17
GPA: 3.56
Send PM
Sentence Explanation [#permalink] New post   13 Jul 2012, 11:13
Had they gone to field without referee, both teams might have the chance to win the match.
if both teams went to field without referee,they would have the chance to win the match.
Are these two sentences convey the same meaning?Can anyone explain?
User avatar
KapTeacherEli
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 613
Own Kudos [?]: 645 [1]
Given Kudos: 2
Location: Cambridge, MA
Send PM
Re: Sentence Explanation [#permalink] New post   13 Jul 2012, 11:24
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
farukqmul wrote:
Had they gone to field without referee, both teams might have the chance to win the match.
if both teams went to field without referee,they would have the chance to win the match.
Are these two sentences convey the same meaning?Can anyone explain?
Hi faruk,

Both of the sentences are in error. Both us "both" to refer to the teams, and therefore seem to imply that both teams could with the match at the same time. The proper construction would likely involve the word "each," although I don't quite understand the meaning behind this sentence--why does not having a referee affect the teams' chances of winning?
User avatar
farukqmul
Manager
Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2012
Posts: 76
Own Kudos [?]: 220 [0]
Given Kudos: 134
Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 460 Q38 V17
GPA: 3.56
Send PM
Re: Sentence Explanation [#permalink] New post   13 Jul 2012, 13:24
KapTeacherEli wrote:
farukqmul wrote:
Had they gone to field without referee, both teams might have the chance to win the match.
if both teams went to field without referee,they would have the chance to win the match.
Are these two sentences convey the same meaning?Can anyone explain?
Hi faruk,

Both of the sentences are in error. Both us "both" to refer to the teams, and therefore seem to imply that both teams could with the match at the same time. The proper construction would likely involve the word "each," although I don't quite understand the meaning behind this sentence--why does not having a referee affect the teams' chances of winning?


Sorry..I actually don't know the source of the sentences..someone showed me those and I became very confused...I couldn't give him any explanation..as you said, I guess both of them are wrong..by the way..If I write...
If each team went to field without referee,who seemed to be biased against the team,it would have the chance to win the match ....
Had each team gone to field without referee,who seemed to be biased against the team ,it might have the chance to win the match...

Now are they same?am I missing something ?

Thanks for help..:)
User avatar
KapTeacherEli
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 613
Own Kudos [?]: 645 [1]
Given Kudos: 2
Location: Cambridge, MA
Send PM
Re: Sentence Explanation [#permalink] New post   13 Jul 2012, 21:47
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
farukqmul wrote:
KapTeacherEli wrote:
farukqmul wrote:
Had they gone to field without referee, both teams might have the chance to win the match.
if both teams went to field without referee,they would have the chance to win the match.
Are these two sentences convey the same meaning?Can anyone explain?
Hi faruk,

Both of the sentences are in error. Both us "both" to refer to the teams, and therefore seem to imply that both teams could with the match at the same time. The proper construction would likely involve the word "each," although I don't quite understand the meaning behind this sentence--why does not having a referee affect the teams' chances of winning?


Sorry..I actually don't know the source of the sentences..someone showed me those and I became very confused...I couldn't give him any explanation..as you said, I guess both of them are wrong..by the way..If I write...
If each team went to field without referee,who seemed to be biased against the team,it would have the chance to win the match ....
Had each team gone to field without referee,who seemed to be biased against the team ,it might have the chance to win the match...

Now are they same?am I missing something ?

Thanks for help..:)
Correct phrasing would probably be "each team would have a chance of winning, if it weren't for the biased referee" or something like that. You also could replace "each" with "either."

Whichever way you phrased it, if the referee is biased, you must use the "were/would" tense. This tense, known as the "unreal conditional," is the one to use for counterfactual speculation.

Good luck with your studies!
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: Sentence Explanation [#permalink]
13 Jul 2012, 21:47

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions