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?
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!
Prepare with Kaplan and save $150 on a course!