Because the Supreme Court has ruled that the prosecution in a job disc

A) that they can appeal to when their cases are – that they can appeal is unidiomatic; secondly use of ‘when’ is inappropriate in that it implies a specific point of time of deciding in the lower courts; use of ‘are’ is wrong since the appeal happens after the lower courts have decided the cases

B) to which to appeal after their cases have been – ‘after’ and ‘have been’ are correct usages; correct choice.

C) for appealing if their case has been – ‘their case’ means that all the plaintiffs are collaborating one single case

D) to which they can appeal if their case is – same as in C

E) that their cases can appeal, if they have been – can cases appeal by themselves – distorted meaning
_________________

Nice question this...

Here is a completely different approach to this problem:

First -- Understand the meaning of the sentence -- What is the author saying? -- The Supreme Court has made some rulings that are not very favorable to the plaintiffs. So the plaintiffs feel that they may not be able to appeal to a higher court.

So which of these choices actually conveys this information properly?

Only Choice B -- why? The key is to understand the meaning of the sentence -- the keyword is "after" --- when do you appeal to a higher court?? -- You appeal to a higher court "after" your case has been decided unfavorably in a lower court.

SC can be tackled without getting bogged down by tenses, voices, tones etc.

The word "that" isn't necessary here. The idiomatic structure "court that they can appeal to" is not preferred on the GMAT. But more telling is the last word in (A): "are" --present tense. You need to present the sentence in such a way that it's clear decisions are made in the lower courts and then afterwards there's some possibility of appeal with higher courts that is suggested in the sentence.

I wasn't so hot on "that" but I did like "to which" in answers (B) and (D).

I actually did not even read the first half of the sentence. I only started reading from the comma:
"plaintiffs in such cases fear that they will have no higher court that they can appeal to when their cases are decided in lower courts."

Between (B) and (D)---(B) uses "have been" while (D) uses "is"---not what we want.

So (B) is what we want. It correctly uses "to which" and also correctly uses "have been."

First thing to note is that the plaintiffs have cases of their own and not a single common case.

A that they can appeal to when their cases are ------- The use of the present tense ‘are decided’ is not in appropriate since the appeals will be done well after the decision.

(B) to which to appeal after their cases have been ---- the best choice.


(C) for appealing if their case has been --- ‘their case’ is wrong; all of them together do not have one single case.
(D) To which they can appeal if their case is -----‘their case’ is wrong
(E) that their cases can appeal if they have been --- absurd meaning saying that their cases can appeal.

_________________

My take:
the subject 'plaintiffs' is plural and thus should have a plural (object? possessive?) cases, which eliminates C and D (which have the singular case).
[For example, you don't say the children's mother (unless they have the same mother), you say the children's mothers).

Then, E is eliminated since the cases don't appeal, the plaintiffs appeal.

Between A and B, A uses "when their cases are decided" and B uses "after their cases have been decided."
A uses the plain future, which simply indicates that something will occur and gives no indication of progression of events.
B correctly uses a future perfect, showing that this action will occur in the future and will be completed in the future. This, combined with 'after' shows the progression of events: cases decided -> maybe no court to appeal to.
I'm sure I explained that horribly..

This question mainly deals with the use of future tense in a series of actions.

The rule is that :

The Future tense is either followed by
1) Present Tense

Ex- She will pay you when you ask her.
The time of will pay = time of asking her

2) Present Perfect-

Ex- She will pay you when you have taken out the garbage.

The time of pay you is later than the future time of have taken.

In the given sentence 'plaintiffs in such cases fear that they will have no higher' occurs later than 'cases are decided in lower courts.' Thus 'cases are decided in the lower courts' needs present perfect tense.

Only B and E have present perfect tense. But E introduces another error, the statement 'that their cases can appeal' makes it sound that the 'cases' would appeal and not the plaintiffs.

D is incorrect because the plaintiffs do not all have the same case. From the way that the sentence is structured, the plaintiffs don't appear to be joined in a class-action lawsuit of some sort, so we require the plural form 'cases.' Seeing this subtle detail, you can eliminate both C and D. E is just awkward because cases can't appeal. I think the fight in this question is btw. A and B. A is incorrect because it doesn't make sense to appeal when a case is being decided. Appealing is meant after a judge or jury reaches a verdict. Therefore, B is the correct answer. Hope this helps.

I chose A as "to which to" in B sounded very awkward. Also is "when" instead of "after" the only problem in A? Please suggest. Thanks!

Yes, all other usages in option A are acceptable:

1. The usage of simple present tense "are" in option A does not have any issue. The following sentence is correct:

After you finish your homework, you can play.

2. Moreover, the usage of "that" as an object of preposition is also alright.

D) to which they can appeal if their case is

is changed to

D) to which they can appeal if their cases are

will this make option D better than B ?

Hi Expert,
If Choice C were--
to which they can appeal if their cases are

would it be correct choice ?

Some may argue that that the present perfect "have been decided" is better than "are decided" to depict sequence of the actions "decide" and "appeal". However in option B the word "after" already serves the purpose, and hence simple present would be better.

However in absence of the word "after", present perfect is mandatory. Thus "to which they can appeal if their cases are" is incorrect - perfect tense is required. The following would be correct:
"to which they can appeal AFTER their cases ARE..."
OR
"to which they can appeal IF their cases HAVE BEEN..."

Does B alter the meaning 'to which to appeal'?

Hi pra1785 ,

It actually doesn't. It is trying to convey the following

to which --> Means the Higher court

to appeal --> means plaintiffs can appeal.

In short, they dont have higher courts to which they can appeal.

Hence, B is actually providing the correct meaning and hence, is correct.

Let me know in case of any concern.
_________________

daagh AjiteshArun
I have a doubt whether their case is singular or plural ?
Here their is plural case is singular
As a whole their case will be singular or plural and why so?

'Their' is an adjective and a modifier describing the noun 'case.' Therefore, their case will always be singular.
_________________

daagh
their is possessive pronoun how come it is adjective
Can you please brief on that ?

A word may play different roles in a sentence. Possessive pronouns also play the role of adjectives. Example: his, my, your, her, etc. Some nouns also play the role of adjectives. Ex: oil price etc.
_________________

Imo B

A to has to be there after higher court. Also we need some relationship between the two actions i.e lower courts decision and appealing in high court. Appealing will be after the lower court's decision.
B correct to is correctly placed. Use of have been is correct.
C their case in this context is incorrect. For appealing is wrong
D again their case is wrong as the subject here has to be plural.
E meaning error how can cases appeal? It is plaintiffs who appeal.