The British Admiralty and the War Office met in March 1892 to consider

(A) how they would have to act militarily to deal with them - Wrong Context
(B) how to deal with them if military action would be necessary - Wrong Context
(C) what would be necessary militarily for dealing with such an event - Wrong construction
(D) what military action would be necessary in order to deal with such an event
(E) the necessity of what kind of military action in order to take for dealing with it - Wrong context.

A, B - We are talking about russian attempt and not about russians themselves.

left with C, D & E
E - Wrong context

left with C & D
C - Verb Tense. dealing, militarily - Not very good construction.

Hence D is the answer

The British Admiralty and the War Office met in March 1892 to consider a possible Russian attempt to seize Constantinople and how they would have to act militarily to deal with them.

(A) how they would have to act militarily to deal with them => they , them - who ??

(B) how to deal with them if military action would be necessary
=> should be should be

(C) what would be necessary militarily for dealing with such an event

(D) what military action would be necessary in order to deal with such an event

(E) the necessity of what kind of military action in order to take for dealing with it => wordy / awkward

D is the answer / OA
Solved it yesterday - from OG 11

D. "consider" requires a parallel "deal" and it avoids any reference errors that "they" creates.

IMO D

(A) how they would have to act militarily to deal with them ("they" and "them" Pronoun reference Error)
(B) how to deal with them if military action would be necessary ("them" Pronoun reference Error)
(C) what would be necessary militarily for dealing with such an event ("For dealing" incorrect usage of idiom)
(D) what military action would be necessary in order to deal with such an event (simple and clear)
(E) the necessity of what kind of military action in order to take for dealing with it (Wordy and Awkward)

wats the OA?

The correct idiom is CONSIDER X AND Y


Here X is POSIBLE RUSSIAN ATTEMPT()which is a noun) .

The structure of Y should begin with noun.

The correct idiom is CONSIDER X AND Y


Here X is POSIBLE RUSSIAN ATTEMPT()which is a noun) .

The structure of Y should begin with noun.


ans is D

The British Admiralty and the War Office met in March 1892 to consider a possible Russian attempt to seize Constantinople and how they would have to act militarily to deal with them.

Meaning:

X and Y MET to CONSIDER A and B (Everything stated must adhere to ||ism)


(A) how they would have to act militarily to deal with them
Although Pronoun ambiguity should be checked at last, 'them' doesn't have an antecedent.
Further, 'militarily' as an adverb is illogical per the meaning of the sentence.
(B) how to deal with them if military action would be necessary
Would never goes into IF clause.
Them has no antecedent.
(C) what would be necessary militarily for dealing with such an event
'militarily' as an adverb is illogical per the meaning of the sentence.
(D) what military action would be necessary in order to deal with such an event
Perfect -> maintains ||ism TO Consider X and Y
(E) the necessity of what kind of military action in order to take for dealing with it
Wordy,
IT has no referent.

Hope it makes sense!

Although all the other options are incorrect, even in option (D) 'what action would be necessary' is used. I am facing difficulties to classify it as a phrase. I feel like it is a clause

Neuroscientists are now drawing solid conclusions about the disease.
Here, the disease serves as the object of the preposition about.

A clause includes both a subject and a verb.
A clause may function as a noun.
SC720 in the OG18:
Neuroscientists are now drawing solid conclusions about how the human brain grows.
Here, the portion in blue contains both a subject (brain) and a verb (grows) and thus constitutes a clause.
This clause functions as a NOUN -- a noun serving as the object of the preposition about, just like the disease in the sentence above.
A clause that functions as a noun is known as a NOUN CLAUSE.

and must serve to connect PARALLEL FORMS.
VERB and VERB
MODIFIER and MODIFIER
OBJECT and OBJECT
Forms connected by and must serve the SAME FUNCTION, but they do NOT have to exhibit the same structure.

OA: to consider a possible Russian attempt...and what military action would be necessary
Here, each green portion serves as an object of the verb consider.
Since the two green portions serve the same function, they are considered parallel -- even though they are structured differently.

IMHO in option D it appears two clauses are connected with just FANBOYS. Hence, I selected option E (inspite of being wordy).
Please clarify where I am going wrong.
Due Regards.

Consider this example:

"Tim wants to know where his children are going and what time they will be home."

Tim wants to know two things: 1) where his children are going and 2) what time they will be home. Each of these things is a clause (with a subject and verb), but in this context it's just a parallel list of things that Tim wants to know.

And notice that those clauses wouldn't really work as complete thoughts on their own:

• "Where his children are going."
• "What time [his children] will be home."

We could turn those into questions that could be complete sentences (e.g. "What time will Tim's children be home?"). However, as written, those clauses are not complete thoughts, even though each has a subject and verb.

We have something similar in (D). They met to consider two things: 1) a possible Russian attempt to seize Constantinople and 2) what military action would be necessary in order to deal with such an event. The first thing is just a noun (attempt) with a bunch of modifiers, and the second thing is a noun phrase. So we have two different types of nouns, but still two things that can be grammatically and logically parallel.

And notice that "what military action would be necessary in order to deal with such an event" doesn't really work as a complete thought. If it were posed as a question, then perhaps it could work as an independent clause. But in this context it's just a noun phrase, not a full sentence. So the "and" is just a parallelism trigger in (D).

I hope that helps!

Hi Experts

GMATNinja @VeritasKarishma EducationAisle ChrisLele mikemcgarry AjiteshArun egmat sayantanc2k RonPurewal DmitryFarber MagooshExpert avigutman EMPOWERgmatVerbal MartyTargetTestPrep ExpertsGlobal5 IanStewart
other experts AnthonyRitz

(D) what military action would be necessary in order to deal with such an event

Why we are using would be in the correct sentence


And what if we use "Will be" - Will it be correct?

Also Can we say "Would" is use to show the past events?

I know two uses of would
1) Hypothetical Events
2) telling abut future from the past

is there any other use of would apart from the mentioned one?

We're using "would" because this action is both "future in the past" and conditional. That is, Russia had not yet actually invaded Constantinople at that point in time, Russia was not certain to do so and thereby necessitate a response of any sort, and in fact Russia did not do so at all.

In still other words, this qualifies as literally both of the two uses of "would" that you cited. It would be incorrect to use "will" in this sentence.

Not clear. What are the parallel arms in option D?

KarishmaB

The British Admiralty and the War Office met in March 1892 to consider

(1) a possible Russian attempt to seize Constantinople

and

(2) what military action would be necessary in order to deal with such an event

This is what the sentence means:
A and B met in March to consider a possible Russian attempt to seize C and what military action would be necessary to deal with such an event.

They met to consider two things:
1. a possible Russian attempt to seize C
2. what military action would be necessary to deal with such an event

(A) how they would have to act militarily to deal with them

We use 'military' as an adjective and as a noun. But the adverb 'militarily' is not used often. I would hope for something better.
Also, 'them' has no referent. We are obviously discussing how they will deal with such an action (a Russian attempt to seize C). So we cannot use plural 'them.'
If we mean how they will deal with Russians, then Russians haven't been mentioned at all. The only thing 'them' could refer to are A and B themselves. But that makes no sense.

(B) how to deal with them if military action would be necessary

The use of 'them' has the same problem as (A) above.
Also, the conditional if clause should use past tense 'if military action became necessary' and we should have a main clause in conditional mood with it 'how they would deal with it.' Hence something like the following could work:
A and B met in March to consider
- a possible Russian attempt to seize C and
- how they would deal with it if military action became necessary

(C) what would be necessary militarily for dealing with such an event

Again, the use of 'militarily' is not clear.
It is better to use 'to deal' instead of 'for dealing'

(D) what military action would be necessary in order to deal with such an event

Correct. 'military action' is clear in its usage.

(E) the necessity of what kind of military action in order to take for dealing with it

They were not considering the 'necessity' of the action. They were considering 'the action' that would be necessary if the said event took place.
I don't know how to start evaluating - 'what kind of military action in order to take.' It's simply garbage.
Again, 'to deal' is preferable.

Answer (D)