For many people, household labor remains demanding even if

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of this sentence is that even if they can afford household appliances their grandparents would have found miraculous, household labor remains demanding for many people.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Tenses + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• The “would + have + past participle" construction is used to refer to a hypothetical action in the past.
• The "would + simple present tense verb" construction is used to refer to hypothetical future actions.
• “being” is only to be used when it is part of a noun phrase or represents the passive continuous verb tense; the use of passive continuous must be justified in the context.
• The simple present tense is used to indicate actions taking place in the current time frame, indicate habitual actions, state universal truths, and convey information that is permanent in nature.
• The simple past tense is only used to refer to events that concluded in the past.

A: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "household labor remains demanding even if able to afford"; the construction of this phrase illogically implies that for many people household labor remains demanding, even if the labor can afford certain household appliances; the intended meaning is that household labor remains demanding for many people, even if the people can afford certain household appliances. Further, Option A incorrectly uses the "would + simple present tense verb ("find" in this sentence)" construction to refer to a hypothetical action in the past; please remember, the “would + have + past participle" construction is used to refer to a hypothetical action in the past, and the "would + simple present tense verb" construction is used to refer to hypothetical future actions. Additionally, Option A uses the needlessly wordy phrases "able to afford" and "a miracle", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

B: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "household labor remains demanding despite being able to afford"; the construction of this phrase illogically implies that for many people household labor remains demanding, even if the labor can afford certain household appliances; the intended meaning is that household labor remains demanding for many people, even if the people can afford certain household appliances. Further, Option B incorrectly uses the "would + simple present tense verb ("find" in this sentence)" construction to refer to a hypothetical action in the past; please remember, the “would + have + past participle" construction is used to refer to a hypothetical action in the past, and the "would + simple present tense verb" construction is used to refer to hypothetical future actions. Additionally, Option B uses the needlessly wordy phrases "able to afford" and "a miracle", rendering it awkward and redundant. Moreover, Option B needlessly uses "being", leading to further awkwardness and redundancy; please remember, “being” is only to be used when it is part of a noun phrase or represents the passive continuous verb tense; the use of passive continuous must be justified in the context.

C: Correct. This answer choice uses the phrase "even if they can afford", conveying the intended meaning - that even if they can afford household appliances their grandparents would have found miraculous, household labor remains demanding for many people. Further, Option C correctly uses the simple present tense verb phrase "can afford" to refer to an action taking place in the current time frame. Additionally, Option C correctly uses the “would + have + past participle ("found" in this sentence)" construction to refer to a hypothetical action in the past. Besides, Option C is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

D: This answer choice incorrectly uses the simple past tense verb "could afford" to refer to an action taking place in the current time frame; please remember, the simple present tense is used to indicate actions taking place in the current time frame, indicate habitual actions, state universal truths, and convey information that is permanent in nature, and the simple past tense is only used to refer to events that concluded in the past. Further, Option D incorrectly uses the "would + simple present tense verb ("find" in this sentence)" construction to refer to a hypothetical action in the past; please remember, the “would + have + past participle" construction is used to refer to a hypothetical action in the past, and the "would + simple present tense verb" construction is used to refer to hypothetical future actions.

E: This answer choice uses the passive voice constructions "they are able to" and "would have been a miracle", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

Hence, C is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Simple Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



To understand the concept of "Being" on the GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

C it is.
'can' is concise than 'able to'.
'could' changes the meaning of the sentence to a 'possibility' while the original sentence implies 'ability'.

beautiful question.
remember conditional sentences.
to say that a non-fact action is likely to happen in present or future, we use "would do". if I were you, I would do this job.
"would do" is impossible to happen because I can not be you. that is why "non fact action is likely to happen".
to say a non fact action is likely to happen in the past, we use "would have done". if I had met her yesterday, I would have shake hands with her". I did not meet her yesterday, so I can not shake hands.

our sentence is the same. in C, "their parent would have found miraculous" is used to say about non fact action which is certain to happen in the past. but this action can not happen because grandparent can not have the appliances .

to expanse this point, I say about "could have done". to say that a non fact action can happen, but is not certain to happen we use "could have done". similarly, we can say" I can do this job. I will do this job" to present a possibility or a likeliness of doing this job.

is this from gmatprep? I suspect because it is possible that there grandparent is still alive and the non fact action is in present time and, so, "would do" is still correct.

this sentence can be considered a conditional sentence to which we are farmiliar.

Hi daagh, mikemcgarry, sayantanc2k !

IMO, all options are wrong due to some reason that I mention below!, so please check whether my reasoning is right or wrong! Many thanks!

For many people, household labor remains demanding even if able to afford household appliances their grandparents would find a miracle.

(A) even if able to afford household appliances their grandparents would find a miracle

1. lack of subject after even if


(B) despite being able to afford household appliances their grandparents would find a miracle

1. lack of relative pronoun (which, that) between household appliances and their grandparents would find a miracle, therefore a run-on sentence.

2. appliances is plural, while a miracle is singular, so there is no agreement between them.


(C) even if they can afford household appliances their grandparents would have found miraculous

1. lack of relative pronoun (which, that) between household appliances and their grandparents would find a miracle, therefore a run-on sentence.


(D) although they could afford household appliances their grandparents would find miraculous

1. lack of conjuntion between household appliances and their grandparents would find a miracle, therefore a run-on sentence.

2. there is no need for constrast


(E) even if they are able to afford household appliances which would have been a miracle to their grandparents

1. lack of comma before which

2. appliances is plural, while a miracle is singular, so there is no agreement between them.

For many people, household labor remains demanding even if able to afford household appliances their grandparents would find a miracle.

(A) even if able to afford household appliances their grandparents would find a miracle
(B) despite being able to afford household appliances their grandparents would find a miracle
(C) even if they can afford household appliances their grandparents would have found miraculous
(D) although they could afford household appliances their grandparents would find miraculous
(E) even if they are able to afford household appliances which would have been a miracle to their grandparents

leanhdung

The very foundation GMAT is the guidance from OG and GMAT Prep topics through their validity and veracity. If we do not trust them, we will only be going round and round like a bee that has lost its way. On the face of it, I will vouch that there is a definitive and correct answer to this GMAT Prep question.

Now, perhaps it will be interesting to know why you call A, B, and D as run-ons vis-a-vis the definition of the run-ons as sentences in which two or more independent clauses (i.e. complete sentences) are joined without an appropriate conjunction or mark of punctuation. The run-on one finds mostly in GMAT is the comma - splice in which the comma takes on the job of joining the two ICs...
It will be satisfying if we can know what the two ICs are herein and how they are improperly joined. It may be noted that there is no comma used anywhere in these three choices.

IMO, the more substantive route to solve this would be to sift whether ' would find' or 'would have found' is correct. There is no point in saying that the grandparents would find them a miracle in the coming future days. We must attribute their perception with what they would have felt in their on their own contemporaneous times. That is the reason, A, B, and D could be dropped in one go.
Now left with C and E, the latter can be faulted for using a poor substitute 'are able to' to means just 'can' and using 'which' without the customary comma. You may also add to this the charge that it is unnecessarily passive. I feel E will fly in the face of the more dynamic C.

Yeah. I agree with you on the use of would do and would have found!

Let go back to clarify my doubt about run-on sentence.

You mentioned definition of the run-ons as sentences in which two or more independent clauses (i.e. complete sentences) are joined without an appropriate conjunction or mark of punctuation.

In option (C) even if they can afford household appliances their grandparents would have found miraculous, we have two indepedent clauses: even if they can afford household appliances and their grandparents would have found miraculous and there is not any conjuntion between them.

Please explain why this sentence is not considered a run-on one on the basis of your above definition of run-on sentence!

Yeah daagh I agree with you on the difference between would find and would have found.

Let go back to clarify my doubt about the run-on sentence.

I got it: in option C, even if they can afford household appliances is dependent clause and their grandparents would have found miraculous is independent clause.

I usually observe that when the dependent clause comes first, then there is a comma after dependent clause. For example: Although it was raining, we went to the movies.

Bacause this is the first time I see the structure: Even if clause 1 clause 2 (there is no comma), I think sentence structure in C is weird . In my reasoning, if C have a comma between even if they can afford household appliances and their grandparents would have found miraculous, i will choice C

So, in my example, if we remove comma, the sentence becomes Although it was raining we went to the movies, is the new sentence right?

C) For many people, household labor remains demanding even if they can afford household appliances their grandparents would have found miraculous
It is true that when the dependent clause is placed before the main clause, then you require a comma to separate them. However, if the dependent clause is placed after the main clause, then we don't use the comma between them.

The actual way you have to parse this sentence is: For many people, household labor remains demanding even if they can afford household appliances (that) their grandparents would have found miraculous. That (in brackets) is elided and understood.

Therefore, you have an introductory phrase (For many people), then the main IC (household labor remains demanding) and then the dependent clause (even if they can afford household appliances (that) their grandparents would have found miraculous). Now you can see why the comma is not used in this sentence.

Although it was raining, we went to the movies: In this sentence, if you do not put the comma, then it will be wrong. Now reverse the DC/IC roles and make the sentence IC/DC, then you do not have to use the comma. -- We went to the movies although it was raining ---

Many thanks for your enthusiastic replies daagh

Yeah, now i understand why we do not need a comma

The only remaining doubt is whether the function of that in the sentence even if they can afford household appliances (that) their grandparents would have found miraculous is relative pronoun ?

In this sentence, is that a reletive pronoun that funtions as the object of this sentence ?

So, can we elide relative pronoun that in cases it funtions as the object of a sentence?

For many people, household labor remains demanding even if able to afford household appliances their grandparents would find a miracle.

(A) even if able to afford household appliances their grandparents would find a miracle

(B) despite being able to afford household appliances their grandparents would find a miracle

(C) even if they can afford household appliances their grandparents would have found miraculous

(D) although they could afford household appliances their grandparents would find miraculous

(E) even if they are able to afford household appliances which would have been a miracle to their grandparents

Can anyone please help me out?

what is 'they' referring to?

they refers to many people. In fact, that is the only eligible antecedent of they.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses Pronoun "eligible antecedents", their application and examples in significant detail. If you or someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.

both "could" and "would" are past use of "can" and "will". if "can" and "will" have any uses, "could " and "will" also have those uses in the past. this is easy to remember.

but both "could" and "would" can be used in present. gmat artfully presents could and would in choice D for the use at present. gmat want to trick us because normally we think could and would are used in the past. gmat makers are artful players, who can make tricks from basic use.

could in present use mean a possibility, which is less likely than "can" , and , request, which is more polite than "can".
would in present use means a likeliness , which is less definite than "will.

for easy memory, could and would can be used in present use with less definite meaning than can and would.

"would have done" show an unreal action which are certain to happen if an unreal condition happen in the past. but this condition never happen in the past.
would do show a future action, time of speaking in in the past.

we have a chance to fully understand 'would have done" when we see it next to "would do"

For many people, household labor remains demanding even if able to afford household appliances their grandparents would find a miracle.

(A) even if able to afford household appliances their grandparents would find a miracle

1. missing subject. "even if" + clause is correct.
2. "appliances" is plural but "a miracle" is singular.
3. "would do" in conditional sentences means that someone is not likely to do sth in the future. "would have done" means that someone is not likely to do sth in the past.
Since the grandparents didn't have any of the household appliances in the past, it is logical to use "would have found".

(B) despite being able to afford household appliances their grandparents would find a miracle

1. "despite" + simple noun. Here, "being able to..." is too complex, so B is not preferable.
2. same as A choice explanations (2) and (3).

(C) even if they can afford household appliances their grandparents would have found miraculous

1. To expanse on this problem, notice that there is a "that" which should be placed after "appliances" but has been omitted BUT THIS IS ALLOWED.
2. "they" is not ambiguous here, since it could only refer to "people".
3. "even if" doesn't have to be followed by conditional clauses. sentences don't have to have the same tenses. Like here, "can" and "would have found" are two completely different tenses but they can coexist in one sentence.

(D) although they could afford household appliances their grandparents would find miraculous

1. these many people are actually able to afford the appliances, so "can" is preferable. "could" means less likely.
2. same as choice A in explanation (3)

(E) even if they are able to afford household appliances which would have been a miracle to their grandparents

1. "be able to" is less preferable than "can". To expanse this: "can" > "be able to" > "the capability of"
2. same as answer choice A explanation (2).

VeritasKarishma GMATNinja GMATNinjaTWO AndrewN Wanted to confirm a point I used as a decision point in this question. The question refers to household appliances(i.e. plural) as "a Miracle" (Since miracle can have a plural form i.e.miracles- I eliminated A,B,E). Just wanted to confirm my doubt. If there are certain better markers please enlighten us. Would be helpful.

Cheers

Hello, Sidharth003. I would call that observation a nice catch. The GMAT™ is particular about pairing plural nouns with other plural nouns in such circumstances, so miracles would be an improvement. I am cautious in taking the ax to different iterations of a sentence, so I might mark the issue as a doubt rather than toss the answer choice aside on this consideration alone. But, when paired with other doubts or irregularities, I would build a stronger case against the answer choices that contained "a miracle." I was only mulling over (C) and (E) based on the head of the underlined portion, and the latter offered nothing compelling for me to select it over (C), so I chose that one, with its safer "miraculous" and all.

Well done on a tough question.

- Andrew

As Andrew rightly points out, it might not be a great idea to toss these options aside, solely on the basis of usage of miracle.

When referring to the plural nouns as "collective", GMAT does use a singular noun on many occasions, especially when using that singular noun as a modifier.

Few examples:

The Federalist papers, a strong defense of the United States Constitution as well as an important body of work in political science, represent the handiwork of three different authors.

Providing initial evidence that airports are a larger source of pollution than they were once believed to be, environmentalists in Chicago report that the total amount of pollutant emitted annually by vehicles at O'Hare International Airport is twice that emitted annually by all motor vehicles in the Chicago metropolitan area.

There are many more such official sentences.