Those skeptical of the extent of global warming argue that short-term

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 the scientific community remains divided over whether significant warming will occur and over what impact it would have.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Tenses + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• “will” is preferred for referring to events that are certain to happen and “would” is preferred for referring to events that are hypothetical, meaning the use of “would” alongside verbs that express uncertainty (predict, assume, guess, etc.) is redundant.

A: This answer choice incorrectly uses “will” to refer to a hypothetical action; please remember, “will” is preferred for referring to events that are certain to happen, and “would” is preferred for referring to events that are hypothetical. Further, Option A uses the needlessly wordy phrase “what impact will it have if it does”, leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

B: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase “whether warming that occurs will be significant”; the construction of this phrase incorrectly implies that the scientific community remains divided over whether the warming that is sure to occur will be significant; the intended meaning is that the scientific community remains divided over whether warming that is significant in nature will occur.

C: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase “or the impact it would have if it did”; the use of “or” incorrectly implies that the scientific community remains divided either over whether significant inflation will occur or over what impact it would have; the intended meaning is that the scientific community remains divided both over whether significant warming will occur and over what impact it would have. Further, Option C uses the needlessly wordy phrase “the impact it would have if it did”, leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

D: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase “or the impact it would have if it did”; the use of “or” incorrectly implies that the scientific community remains divided either over whether significant inflation will occur or over what impact it would have; the intended meaning is that the scientific community remains divided both over whether significant warming will occur and over what impact it would have. Further, Option D incorrectly uses “will” to refer to a hypothetical action; please remember, “will” is preferred for referring to events that are certain to happen and “would” is preferred for referring to events that are hypothetical. Additionally, Option D uses the passive voice construction “there will be significant warming”, leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

E: Correct. This answer choice uses the phrase “whether significant warming will occur and what impact it would have”, conveying the intended meaning – that the scientific community remains divided both over whether warming that is significant in nature will occur and over what impact it would have. Further, Option E correctly uses “would” to refer to a hypothetical event. Additionally, Option E is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

Hence, E is the best answer choice.

All the best!
Experts' Global Team

My take is E

A. on whether significant warming will occur and what impact will it have if it does. - whether and if in a same sentence , already suspicious
B. on whether warming that occurs will be significant and the impact it would have. - meaning is changed , here the warming will occur for sure , also warming that occurs and the impact are 2 different things , here both are mentioned as one part

C. as to whether significant warming will occur or the impact it would have if it did. - or is a problem here, also if

D. over whether there will be significant warming or the impact it will have. same or is used

E. over whether significant warming will occur and what impact it would have.

+1 to E. I do not see how A can be right since it uses "will it" instead of "it will." Seems to me like "will it" should only be used when posing a question (I am sure there are some exceptions). I understand the skepticism with "would" in E, however, I did not like any of the other answers. I chose E because I thought it was less incorrect.

@jj22l, you're right that the construction "will it" should be used to ask a question, and isn't appropriate as it appears in answer choice A.

@scheol79, you're right that answer choice E is an unusual example of the subjunctive mood, which can be used to express hypothetical situations. You'll often see "would" used to express the result of a hypothetical condition:

If the two companies merged, the resulting corporation would be unstoppable.
If I were richer, I would buy a yacht.

Not sure what the source of this question is -- to be honest, none of these choices is really ideal, and as I mentioned the use of the subjunctive in this context is a bit unusual. But E is the best of the bunch.

Hope that helps!

Those skeptical of the extent of global warming argue that short-term temperature data are an inadequate means of predicting long-term trends and point out that the scientific community remains divided on whether significant warming will occur and what impact will it have if it does.

A. on whether significant warming will occur and what impact will it have if it does.
B. on whether warming that occurs will be significant and the impact it would have
C. as to whether significant warming will occur or the impact it would have if it did
D. over whether there will be significant warming or the impact it will have
E. over whether significant warming will occur and what impact it would have

In choice E, are "whether significant...occur" and "what impact...have" noun phrases? According to the structure of the sentence, they must be noun phrases because they come after a preposition (over), and only noun and noun phrases can follow a preposition.
However, both don't seem noun phrases:
Can "whether + clause" be a noun phrase?
Also, I cannot identify what kind of structure "what impact it would have" is. It seems a clause. Is "what" working as a pronoun in this sentence? :s
Finally, they don't seem parallel at all, but "AND" requires parallelism.

Please, your comments.

No they are clauses: Noun clauses. Prepositions can be followed by clauses. For example:

The jury found him guilty for what he did.
- The preposition for followed by noun clause what he did.

An example from OG-13, #34:

Beyond the immediate cash flow crisis that the museum faces, its survival depends on whether it can broaden its membership and leave its cramped quarters for a site where it can store and exhibit its more than 12,000 artifacts.
- The preposition on followed by noun clause whether it can broaden its membership.....

Hi EMPOWERgmatRichC

could you please explain why E is better then A?

and how will and would parallel in option E.


Please clarify this.

Regards

hmm... i like (a) best, but only if it was supposed to say 'it will', and you mis-typed it as 'will it'. if the version you've typed is indeed faithful to the original, then, well, all the choices suck.

reasons:
- 'whether...' and 'what impact...' are parallel.
- the meaning is correct.
- the tenses are parallel: 'will occur' || 'will have'.

choice b:
- the original sentence clearly indicates that scientists don't know whether warming will occur in the first place. this wording, though, assumes that warming will occur; according to this sentence, the only thing in doubt is the extent of such warming.
- 'whether...' is not parallel to 'impact'.

choice c:
- 'as to' is dicey.
- 'or' should be 'and' (because they're wondering about both questions).
- past tense 'did' is inappropriate.

choice d:
- 'or' should be 'and'.
- 'whether...' isn't parallel to 'the impact'.

choice e:
- tense inconsistency: 'will occur' isn't parallel to 'would have'. moreover, 'would have' isn't appropriate for the consequences of something that hasn't even happened yet.

if choice a actually has the original wording posted at the beginning of this thread ('will it' instead of 'it will'), then it's definitely wrong. 'will it' is only ok in the context of a question ('will it rain tomorrow?'), and can't be used as a noun phrase.

process of elimination:
first, i hope it's clear that we want AND, not OR. according to the context of the problem, the scientific community is divided on both of these issues (you don't get a choice between them), so 'and' makes more sense than 'or'.

that leaves choices b and e.

use PARALLELISM to resolve that dilemma:
choice b uses whether... and the impact in parallel.
choice e uses whether... and what impact... in parallel.
thus, choice e has better parallelism.
(incidentally, the same parallelism issue can also be used to get rid of answers c and d, the ones containing 'or')

hope that helps.

we can justify 'would' here by saying that it's a case of the subjunctive mood, which isn't often used in contexts like this one. they're using 'would' instead of 'will' because the occurrence whose consequences are being considered is hypothetical.

BY Ron

MartyMurray . I am still not convinced with the explanation. Could you please elaborate on how "it will" is preferred over "will it"?

The sentence says that the scientific community remains divided on something. So, the answer choice must state what they are divided on.

If we use "will it," what we get is essentially the following:

The scientific community remains divided on what impact will it have.

Because the wording "will it" is in question form, that sentence is a muddled mix of a statement and the question "What impact will it have?" Thus that version does not effectively convey its meaning.

In other words the scientific community is not divided over a question. They are divided over something else. They are divided over WHAT IMPACT IT WILL HAVE. Some think that the impact IT WILL have is one impact, and others think the impact IT WILL have is another impact.

In other words they are arguing about or disagreeing about the nature of the impact IT WILL have.

By using "it will" we get the following:

The scientific community is divided on what impact it will have.

Perfect.

Hi MartyMurray

I have searched some dictionaries for 'divide over' but mostly are talking about 'divide on'. I fee it is common phrasal verb or idiom.

Hmm, interesting. I just followed your lead and did the same thing. I guess I had seen the expression used in the following way, and somehow gotten the impression that it was not optimal for the situation in the question above.

The English are divided on the issue of the country's relationship with the EU.

However, I'm not really sure now whether "over" really is any better than "on" in the sentence in the above question. So, I'm going to edit that part out of my response.

The feedback is much appreciated.

daagh AjiteshArun Bishal123456789

Can you please differentiate between A and E ?
what's wrong in A and why subjunctive is required ?

IMO both A and E are not good enough to be the OA. However, since the declare OA by GMAT is E, we have to sail with the wind.

A. the "will it" phrase is wrong unless it is a typo. Without the typo, A may stand as the best of the lot. However, the typo seems to be only in our own guess as A is not the considered choice.

In E, when the second part uses 'would', it would have been parallel to use would occur for the first part also rather than "occur". After all, the first part is as speculative as the second part.
The take away is that the shift of tense from simple future 'of will' to the future of past namely 'would' is not as critical as we have imagined.

GMATNinja, GMATNinjaTwo, generis, MartyTargetTestPrep

dear experts,i think the parallelism is one of the point of this question. so narrow to A and E
I crossed off E because I though"would" is nonsense,
simple tense:
the skeptical argue.... that what impact it will have.
simple tense:
the skeptical argue.... that what impact it would have.

OA is E, would any experts help further the would in E?

thanks in advance.

The version created via the use of (E) is not great.

We can eliminate (A), (B), (C), and (D) because of the use of "divided on" along with other reasons. For instance, "will it have" in (A) is structured as a question, when what should be in that place is a statement.

So, we are left with (E) as the only possible correct answer, but the use of "would" seems a bit off. So, why would the question writer have considered (E) correct?

The use of "would" is not ideal, but we have to presume that the use of "would" is justified in the following way.

The sentence says that scientists are not in agreement on whether global warming will occur. So, we can't say the following, because it doesn't make sense.

the scientific community remains divided over whether significant warming will occur and what impact it will have.

Notice, the use of "will have" results in the sentence's implying that warming WILL have an impact. However, the sentence has conveyed that the scientific community is not even in agreement that warming WILL occur. So, not all are wondering what impact it WILL have, because some don't even believe it will occur. If some believe that warming will not or may not occur, they are not wondering what impact warming WILL have, because they believe that it will not or may not occur at all. Rather, they are wondering what impact it WOULD have IF it were to occur.

So, the idea is that by using "would," rather than "will," the sentence communicates the logical meaning that scientists are not in agreement regarding the impact that warming "WOULD have" IF warming were to occur.

Of course, the sentence does not include "if warming were to occur." Rather it ends with "would have" and leaves us to understand "would have if warming were to occur" even though "if warming were to occur" is not written.

Really, that structure does not convey the meaning very well, but that's what's going on.

Hi

Just a simple thought on the use of the subjunctive. Hope this will be helpful for future application.

INTENDED MEANING:

1. There are people who are skeptical of the extent of global warming.
2. They argue that short-term temperature data are an inadequate means of predicting long-term trends.
3. They also point out that the scientific community remains divided on two things:
• whether significant warming will occur
• and
• what impact significant warming would have (if it occurred.)

When the probability of something occurring is very remote or not certain, the following construction is to be used:
Note the use of the simple past tense in the “if” clause” balanced by the “would” form of the verb in the “then” clause.

1. If I were the leader of the party, I would not tolerate such insubordination.
2. If I had a million dollars, I would buy a house overlooking the beach.

In both cases, the probability of the verb in the “if” clause taking place is either remote or uncertain. Choice E is built along the same construct. There is uncertainty about the whole “significant warming” thing, and hence the use of the above mentioned subjunctive.

Fitting in Choice E (reversed): ….and if significant warming occurred, what impact it would have.
Simple past: "occurred" balance by "would"

Hope this helps