The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) had long been

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) had long been expected to announce a reduction in output to bolster sagging oil prices, but officials of the organization just recently announced that the group will pare daily production by 1.5 million barrels by the beginning of next year, but only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, were to trim output by a total of 500,000 barrels a day.

A.year, but only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, were to trim output
B.year, but only if the output of non-OPEC nations, which includes Norway, Mexico, and Russia, is trimmed
C.year only if the output of non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, would be trimmed
D.year only if non-OPEC nations, which includes Norway, Mexico, and Russia, were trimming output
E.year only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, trim output

POE:
1. use but or only if, otherwise using both will create redundant error.
so option A & B are out.
2. in if ... then(then is hidden in this structure) construction:
if..(followed by)simple present tense ---------------> then ....(followed by) either simple present or simple future
and vice versa is also true.
here then(hidden) is followed by simple future so if should be followed by simple present!!

Option C : the group will pare daily production .... if non-OPEC nations ..would be trimmed (break the rule)
Option D : the group will pare daily production .... if non-OPEC nations ..were trimming output(also break the rule)
Option E : the group will pare daily production .... if non-OPEC nations ..trim output



1 kudos if you like it!!

Hello Everyone!

Let's tackle this question, one problem at a time, and figure out how to get to the correct option quickly! To start, here is the original question with any major differences between the options highlighted in orange:

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) had long been expected to announce a reduction in output to bolster sagging oil prices, but officials of the organization just recently announced that the group will pare daily production by 1.5 million barrels by the beginning of next year, but only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, were to trim output by a total of 500,000 barrels a day.

(A) year, but only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, were to trim output
(B) year, but only if the output of non-OPEC nations, which includes Norway, Mexico, and Russia, is trimmed
(C) year only if the output of non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, would be trimmed
(D) year only if non-OPEC nations, which includes Norway, Mexico, and Russia, were trimming output
(E) year only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, trim output

After a quick glance over the options, a few key differences jump out:

1. only if vs. but only if
2. including vs. which includes
3. were to trim / is trimmed / would be trimmed / were trimming / trim

Let's start with #1 on our list: only if vs. but only if. The words "but" and "only if" both seem to have the same function here - to create a conditional statement. We also have the conjunction "but" used earlier in the sentence. It's generally considered a bad idea to use the same coordinating conjunction (and, for, nor, but, or, yet, so) more than once in a sentence. So let's rule out A & B because they repeat the conjunction "but," which makes this sentence sound redundant and confusing.

Next, let's tackle #3 on our list: verb tense of "to trim." We need to make sure that whichever option we choose uses active voice, the correct verb tense, and conveys a clear meaning to the reader. To more easily spot the problem here, I'm going to cross out the non-essential phrase that's meant to throw you off:

(C) year only if the output of non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, would be trimmed

This is INCORRECT because it distorts the meaning. By saying "would be trimmed," it suggests that some other person/group will trim output - not the nations themselves, which is the intended meaning.

(D) year only if non-OPEC nations, which includes Norway, Mexico, and Russia, were trimming output

This is INCORRECT because it uses past tense instead of present or future tense. The non-OPEC nations haven't started trimming output already - otherwise this wouldn't be a problem. The condition is that OPEC will reduce their production in the future if those nations trim their output from here on out. The verb tense used here doesn't make logical sense, so it's wrong.

(E) year only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, trim output

This is CORRECT! Using the present tense "trim" works here because the non-OPEC nations have to start trimming output now, so that OPEC will do what they say they're going to in the future.

There you have it - option E is the best choice!


Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.

Let me not go too deep into the topic trying to understand subjunctive possible hypotheticals etc.
Choices B and D are out because they both denote the plural 'nations' with a singular verb 'includes'. C is also out because we never use the verb "would be trimmed" in the 'if clause'. A is also out because the future tense 'will pare' in the main clause will not gel with the past conditional 'were' in the 'if clause'. This leaves us barely with E.

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 the crucial part of this sentence is that OPEC will pare daily production by 1.5 million barrels by the beginning of next year only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, trim output by a total of 500,000 barrels a day.

Concepts tested here: Subject-Verb Agreement + Meaning + Tenses + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• For referring to a hypothetical future event and its outcome, the preferred method is to express the hypothetical event in the simple present tense and express the outcome in the simple future tense.

A: This answer choice uses the needlessly wordy phrases "but only if" and "were to trim", leading to awkwardness and redundancy; these phrases are redundant, as "but" and "were to" can be deleted without a loss of clarity.

B: This answer choice incorrectly refers to the plural noun "nations" with the singular verb "includes". Further, Option B alters the meaning of this sentence through the phrase "if the output...is trimmed"; the use of the passive voice incorrectly implies that OPEC will pare daily production by the beginning of next year if a non-specified entity trims the output of non-OPEC nations; the intended meaning is that OPEC will pare daily production by the beginning of next year if the non-OPEC nations themselves trim their output. Additionally, Option B uses the needlessly wordy phrase "but only if", leading to awkwardness and redundancy; this phrase is redundant, as "but" can be deleted without a loss of clarity.

C: This answer choice alters the meaning of this sentence through the phrase "if the output...would be trimmed"; the use of the passive voice incorrectly implies that OPEC will pare daily production by the beginning of next year if a non-specified entity trims the output of non-OPEC nations; the intended meaning is that OPEC will pare daily production by the beginning of next year if the non-OPEC nations themselves trim their output.

D: This answer choice incorrectly refers to the plural noun "nations" with the singular verb "includes". Further, Option D incorrectly uses the simple past continuous tense verb "were trimming" to refer to a hypothetical future action; please remember, for referring to a hypothetical future event and its outcome, the preferred method is to express the hypothetical event in the simple present tense and express the outcome in the simple future tense.

E: Correct. This answer choice avoids the subject-verb agreement error seen in Options B and D, as it uses the present participle ("verb+ing" - "including" in this sentence) rather than an active verb. Further, Option E uses the phrase "in non-OPEC nations...trim output", conveying the intended meaning - that OPEC will pare daily production by the beginning of next year if the non-OPEC nations themselves trim their output. Additionally, Option E correctly refers to a hypothetical future action with the simple present tense verb "trim". Besides, Option E is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

Hence, E is the best answer choice.

All the best!
Experts' Global Team

I am surpised no-one said A & B are out bcos of the following reason...

by the beginning of next year, but only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia

This effectively means " beginning of next year " ..... " including Norway, Mexico, and Russia" which makes no sense. The comma after next year makes "but only if non-OPEC nations" as more a optional clause without which the sentence should complete.

Hence the comma after "next year" needs to disappear.

Didn't you guys notice this.... Or am i thinking too much....

That rule is NOT true. That's too simplistic. Whether a comma should be used or not depends on whether the modifier is vital. See these two blogs:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/that-vs-which-on-the-gmat/
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-gramm ... modifiers/

Vital: The old man drinking a cup of coffee is a famous writer.

Non-vital: My good friend, drinking a cup of coffee, did not seem motivated to run 5K with me.

In the first sentence, the phrase is vital because it is helpful in identifying the subject. If we removed this modifier, that could make the identify of the subject less clear. In the second sentence, the subject is my good friend --- no ambiguity: the modifier is descriptive, but not needed to establish identity.

Does all this make sense?

Mike

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) had long been expected to announce a reduction in output to bolster sagging oil prices, but officials of the organization just recently announced that the group will pare daily production by 1.5 million barrels by the beginning of next year, but only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, were to trim output by a total of 500,000 barrels a day

A. year, but only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, were to trim output
B. year, but only if the output of non-OPEC nations, which includes Norway, Mexico, and Russia, is trimmed
C. year only if the output of non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, would be trimmed
D. year only if non-OPEC nations, which includes Norway, Mexico, and Russia, were trimming output
E. year only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, trim output

As per the explanation given by OG, option B and C are wrong because of passive voice in the underlined portion doesn't state who would trim the prices.

As per my understanding of the meaning, it is not necessary to know the doer of trimming. So I would not have eliminated B and C on the grounds of meaning.

Instructor, please help me understand if option B and C distort the meaning.

Hi @Mission2012,

Thank you for articulating your question so well. Such good question posts help us identify the gaps in your understanding and that in turn helps you figure out where exactly you are going on.

Let's figure out what is happening with this question.

What is the meaning of the sentence?
Normally I would ask you to tell me the meaning of the sentence but in the essence of time let me give that to you:

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) had long been expected to announce a reduction in output to bolster sagging oil prices, but officials of the organization just recently announced that the group will pare daily production by 1.5 million barrels by the beginning of next year, but only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, were to trim output by a total of 500,000 barrels a day.

1: The OPEC was expected to announce reduction in output in order to increase sagging oil prices.
2: But it announced that it will reduce the production to a certain degree only if the non-OPEC nations trimmed their output as well.

So as you can see the action of OPEC nations is contingent upon the action taken by the non-OPEC nations. So clearly the action of trimming of output by a total of 500,000 barrels a day is something for which we need to explicitly know who the doer is. Just by saying that "the output of non-OPEC nations should be trimmed" does not tell us who actually will do this trimming.

I hope this explains why Choices B and C are incorrect.
So in a nutshell, it is very important to understand what the original sentence intends to communicate and then ensure that the correct choice maintains that meaning.

Happy preparation!
Payal

Hi experts/ chetan2u,

I was stuck between C and E, opted for wrong option (C) as I thought here we need subjunctive mood (If....Then clause)

Whats wrong with C. Has it been eliminated because of wordiness.??

Hi,

1. Is the usage of 'which' in option B and D correct?
2. In option E, doesn't 'including Norway, Mexico, and Russia' modify 'non-OPEC nations' to suggest
that Norway, Mexico and Russia are part of non-OPEC nations.

Thanks for your time!!!

Hello VishalOne,


I would be glad to help you out with this query.

1. In Choices B and D, the noun modifier which modifies the preceding noun entity non-OPEC nations. The modification is correct because per the context of the sentence Norway, Mexico, and Russia are non-OPEC nations. But because which stands for plural non-OPEC nations, use of singular verb includes for the subject which is incorrect.

2. Yes, your analysis about the role of including Norway, Mexico, and Russia is correct.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

Regarding the including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, I thought 'comma + verb-ing modifier' only modifies the preceding clause. Then shouldn't the modifier be modifying something other than OPEC nations since 'OPEC nations' is a noun?

Hi fusion327, this indeed creates confusion. The rule you've mentioned is for present participial phrases. However, including is not a present participial phrase; including is actually a preposition. Hence, the general rules of participial phrases do not apply to including.

including can modify the Noun or Noun-Phrase immediately before the word including.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana has a special note on the usage of including. Have attached the corresponding section of the book, for your reference.

egmat

one thing that i don't get is that Option E states: year only if the output of non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, were trim output

As per my understanding, Verb-ing if separated by a comma modifies the preceding clause or the subject of the preceding clause and if NO Comma is used then only can Verb-ing modifier modify the closest possible noun i.e non-Opec nations in this question

I thought (C) was an attractive answer because it doesn't demand that the non-OPEC nations trim output now or first. However, it is wrong for the following reasons:

First, although (C) and (E) have different meanings, it's not clear that one meaning is better than the other. It's just as reasonable for OPEC to demand that non-OPEC nations trim output now as it is for OPEC to demand that non-OPEC nations trim output at some point in the future. In SC questions, I often find that two answers have different meanings, but one meaning is not better than the other. Thus, an option can't be eliminated based on meaning.

Second, if the author really wanted to express that non-OPEC nations can trim output at some point in the future, then "will" would have been much better than "would". For example,
I will trim output only if you will trim output. -- This sounds fine.
I will trim output only if you would trim output. -- This is definitely not right.
The use of "would" in (C) pretty much completely eliminates it as a potential answer.

Third, if everything else is equal, active voice should be preferred over passive voice. There is already enough reason to eliminate (C), but this is still something worth considering.

Finally, (C) makes the "only if" clause parallel with its superordinate (main) clause. I don't think parallelism is intended to be a big factor for this question, but it is something worth noting.

---

As a side note, several experts have mentioned that there are rules for which verb tenses can be used in conditional clauses (more on that here and here). These rules are good to keep in mind; however, there are caveats to these rules that should also be kept in mind (more on that here).

Hi experts/ chetan2u,

I was stuck between C and E, opted for wrong option (C) as I thought here we need subjunctive mood (If....Then clause)

Whats wrong with C. Has it been eliminated because of wordiness.??


And more over if we will go with the meaning. Would we can expect in hypothetical situation. So in Option C we can't find any hypothetical situation. So C is wrong.

Hi BijayKru, C says: only if the output of non-OPEC nations would be trimmed

This doesn't tell us who would trip the output.

E clearly tell us that non-OPEC nations trim output.

Another issue with C is the incorrect use of conditional construct (if). The structure in C is:

If X would happen, Y will happen.

(if the output of non-OPEC nations would be trimmed, the group will pare daily production)

This is a grammatically incorrect sentence. The if portion (in this case if the output of non-OPEC nations would be trimmed) can never have a will/would.

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