Since February, the Federal Reserve has raised its short-term interest

Hello smartguy595

If we take the same example:
"analysts have been predicting [something] because of the economy’s continued strength"
and change it on caused by:

"analysts have been predicting ... caused by of the economy’s continued strength"

Does it sound for you correct?

Hi Kunal, a subordinate clause (Dependent clause) + an Independent clause, grammatically functions as an Independent clause. So, in the original sentence, following two Independent clauses are connected by coordinating conjunction and:

(i) Since February, the Federal Reserve has raised its short-term interest rate target five times
- Independent clause

(ii) Because of the economy’s continued strength, analysts have been predicting for weeks that the target will be raised again in November
- Subordinate clause (Because of...) + an Independent clause (analysts have been..), functioning as an Independent clause

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

daagh
Why did u consider that the prediction is still going on, maybe the analysts predicted for weeks but later got tired and stopped predicting as in 'C'
in C past tense "predicted" with conditional "would" is right that way?

The prediction is valid until November. Only by November, one will know the actual. Therefore, the prediction remains intact until then.
If the original prediction is not currently existent, what is the new prediction now? There is no such thing. Therefore we have to take that the prediction is, as of now, continuing.

I understand why B, C, D, E are wrong, but in A 'because' should modify a very isn't it ? "economy’s continued strength" is a noun right ?
Please explain.

Hi rashwiniyer, grammatically speaking, the sentence does not just say because; it says because of. The presence of of indicates that a prepositional phrase should follow.

In other words, since of is a preposition, it can be expected to be followed by a noun. This is exactly what's happening here.

If you are wondering whether because of the economy’s continued strength acts as an adverbial modifier, the answer is yes.

analysts have been predicting for weeks that the target will be raised again in November.

Why have analysts been predicting?

because of the economy’s continued strength.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses difference between because and because of. Have attached the corresponding section of the book, for your reference.

Responding to a question that appeared on our Ask Me Anything About SC thread -- and I figured that it might help somebody here, too:


Sure! Take another look at (D): "due to the economy's continued strength, analysts..."

The phrase "due to _____" always modifies a noun. So this construction suggests that the analysts are due to the economy's strength! That doesn't make any sense.

"Because" on the other hand, can modify an action or a whole clause. Here's (A) again:

"...because of the economy's continued strength, analysts have been predicting for weeks that the target will be raised again..."

Now the analysts have been predicting something because of the economy's strength. Perfectly logical.

I hope that helps!

Since February, the Federal Reserve has raised its short-term interest rate target five times, and because of the economy’s continued strength, analysts have been predicting for weeks that the target will be raised again in November.

A. because of the economy’s continued strength, analysts have been predicting for weeks that the target will --> two parallel action: have been predicting is correctly compared to has raised and will is the right form
B. with the economy’s strength continuing, analysts predicted for weeks that the target -->it wrongly means that the economic strength of the Federal Reserve is continuing. direct be after target is incorrect
C. because the economy continues strong, analysts predicted for weeks that the target would -->two incompatible tense actions, economy continues strong and analysts predicted.
D. due to the economy’s continued strength, analysts have been predicting for weeks that the target -->same error as B
E. due to the fact of the economy’s continued strength, analysts predicted for weeks that the target will -->predicted is wrong tense here

Hi experts,

Please help me to clarify why "will" in A is correct and "would" in C is wrong. Shouldn't "would" be used instead of "will" in reported speech? Sorry because I am not a native speaker.

P/S: I have read posts explaining why past tense verb "predicted" is wrong (because of the usage of present tense "continues" in the modifier preceding it).

Thanks

Notice the presence of Since February, the Federal Reserve has raised

The usage of present perfect tense suggests that the action of raising has occurred sometime in the past and it is STILL into effect.

Thus, when we talk about the analysts predicting something... We need to show that the prediction is taking place now and that this prediction will happen in the future.

Keeping the above in mind we need "have neen predicting" as rightly written in (A) as compared to "predicted" in (B)

Now, whenever we need to talk about a future action w.r.t a past action we need to use the word "Would"

E.g. Google announced that it would launch it's new cell phone in 2021.

In the above, the announcement happened some time in the past and at this particular time Google was talking about an action (launch) that will happen in the future.

I.e. it is talking about an action that will happen in the future w.r.t a past action

However, in this question, we don't have any past action. We cannot say "predicted" since the prediction must be in the current time frame (as mentioned above). Hence we cannot use the word "would" and thus use "will" instead


Flag this question as it highlights the usage of would w.r.t tenses.


I hope this helps

Posted from my mobile device

GMATNinja, and the OP who corrected to show the right application of due-to. As an example, is it correct to use a more complex modified noun such as "the fact that the federal reserved has raised the interest rate is due to economy's continued strength. The sentence is probably little awkward here. *fact* is a noun, and the use of due-to could modify the fact.
The reason I asked is because of another substantive clause used in an OG stem that I thought was hard to quickly spot in 90 seconds avg allowed time per question:
That a ruined structure found at Aqaba, Jordan, was probably a church is indicated by its eastward orientation and overall plan, as well as by the.... the clause because *is indicated by* was a substantive clause used as a noun to my understanding. correct me if my understanding of what could be modified by *due-to* is incorrect please.

Here's how I'd react to your example if I encountered it on the exam: first, I'd think there has to be a clearer way to express that idea. Is the fact due to the strength of the economy or is it the Fed's reaction?

But technically speaking, "the fact" refers to the Fed's reaction. So is it 100% wrong? I don't think so. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable eliminating an answer choice because of a "rule" stipulating that a "that clause" can never be modified by the phrase "due to." There is no such rule. All we know for sure is that "due to" should modify a noun, and a "that clause" can function like a noun.

So this would fall under a gray area for me. If I found another answer that conveyed the same idea more simply and more clearly, I'd choose that alternative, as long as that alternative didn't contain any other glaring issues. But if the other four options all had a concrete error, I'd have no choice but to swallow and pick an option I didn't love.

This kind of logical reasoning is uncomfortable to do under pressure. But it's also unavoidable. A lot of SC simply can't be boiled down to rules. Language is too complicated. So anytime you're not certain that a given construction is wrong, hang on to it, and try to eliminate the stuff you know is wrong.

I hope that helps!

VeritasKarishma EducationAisle MartyTargetTestPrep

In option D, I get that "due to" modifies noun so it doesn't make sense. But how about the use of subjunctive? Is that fine? Please share your views.


Thank you in advance!

Indeed Ashmit; the usage of subjunctive is also a problem in D. We predict that something will happen.

how is the first part of the sentence parallel - Fed Reserve has raised and because of the economies continued strength ? what am i missing here?

Hi Anand, the parallel elements are:

....the Federal Reserve has raised its short-term interest and analysts have been predicting...

because of the economy’s continued strength isn't really parallel with anything.

Another Example:

Peter was confused about his career choices, and in absence of any viable alternatives, he chose Engineering.

Again, "in absence of any viable alternatives" isn't really parallel with anything. The parallel elements are the following two Independent clauses:

Peter was confused about his career choices, and he chose Engineering.

Hello experts,
VeritasKarishma, GMATNinja, @sayantanc2k,@AndrewN,@generis,@AjiteshArun, @DmitrytFarber,@MagooshExpert,@EducationAisle,@GMATNinjaTwo, nightblade354, marty Murray

can you please tell us why wrong answers are wrong?

Thanks for your insights.