Last visit was: 15 Jul 2025, 15:52 It is currently 15 Jul 2025, 15:52
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
zoltan
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Last visit: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 141
Own Kudos:
374
 [29]
Given Kudos: 3
Location: Hungary
Posts: 141
Kudos: 374
 [29]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
26
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
chica
Joined: 19 Dec 2007
Last visit: 19 Jun 2009
Posts: 39
Own Kudos:
86
 [8]
Posts: 39
Kudos: 86
 [8]
5
Kudos
Add Kudos
3
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
nimisha
Joined: 06 Feb 2011
Last visit: 12 Aug 2015
Posts: 5
Own Kudos:
31
 [5]
Given Kudos: 11
Posts: 5
Kudos: 31
 [5]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
achiever01
Joined: 15 Mar 2010
Last visit: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 56
Own Kudos:
237
 [1]
Given Kudos: 30
Posts: 56
Kudos: 237
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A historian attempting to predict in the 1870's which nation would take over world leadership from the British probably would have guessed Bismarck's Prussia and been quite wrong.

(A) have guessed Bismarck's Prussia and (would)been ->no need to specify would again.
(B) have guessed that it would have been Bismarck's Prussia and he would be ->tense order should be reversed
(C) have guessed Bismarck's Prussia and would be
->needs would have been->this action is some where after the past(i.e. in the future of the past) but before the present.
(D) guess Bismarck's Prussia and be
(E) guess that it would be Bismarck's Prussia and would have been


IMO 'A'
User avatar
Marcab
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Last visit: 22 Jan 2021
Posts: 852
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 221
Status:Retaking after 7 years
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V39
GPA: 3.75
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V39
Posts: 852
Kudos: 4,781
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The action must take in past hence D and E are out immediately.
Now we have to keep the sequence of events in mind. Both action are hypothetical and must take in past. Moreover, prediction has to be earlier action.
So the sequence is 1) guessing--->2)result whether the prediction is correct or not
since the prediction would have take placed in between present and hypothetical past, the same goes for the result.
Hence would have guessed and would have been quite wrong is correct.
+1 A
User avatar
mikemcgarry
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Last visit: 06 Aug 2018
Posts: 4,480
Own Kudos:
30,119
 [4]
Given Kudos: 130
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,480
Kudos: 30,119
 [4]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
kiransaxena1988
A historian attempting to predict in the 1870's which nation would take over world leadership from the British probably would have guessed Bismarck's Prussia and been quite wrong.


(A) have guessed Bismarck's Prussia and been

(B) have guessed that it would have been Bismarck's Prussia and he would be

(C) have guessed Bismarck's Prussia and would be

(D) guess Bismarck's Prussia and be

(E) guess that it would be Bismarck's Prussia and would have been

I'm happy to help. :-)

If we are discussing something hypothetical in the past, we use the constructive "would have" + [past participle]
would have said
would have gone
would have been

This is a form of the subjunctive mood. For more on this, see:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-gramm ... ive-tense/
Both actions in this question, the "guessing" and the "being wrong," are past hypothetical actions, so they both most have this form.
First of all, choice (D) & (E) have "would guess" instead of "would have guessed," so they are wrong.
Choices (B) & (C) have the correct construction for the first verb, but not for the second: it has "would be" instead of "would have been." The "being wrong" is also a hypothetical past event, so it has to have this same form. Choice (B) & (C) are incorrect. BTW, choice (B) is also a distended monstrosity that never could be correct.

This leaves (A), which correctly has both verbs in the proper form. Choice (A) is the only possible answer.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
User avatar
nhattruong1302
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 27 Apr 2022
Posts: 57
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 19
Posts: 57
Kudos: 64
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A historian attempting to predict in the 1870's which nation would take over world leadership from the British probably would have guessed Bismarck's Prussia and been quite wrong.

(A) have guessed Bismarck's Prussia and been
parrallel in the usage of verb tense: ... would have guessed ... and would have been ...

(B) have guessed that it would have been Bismarck's Prussia and he would be
wordy and awkward

(C) have guessed Bismarck's Prussia and would be
not parrallel in the usage of verb tense

(D) guess Bismarck's Prussia and be
change the intended meaning of the sentence, the author want to express a possibility and an uncertainty about his/her hypothesis

(E) guess that it would be Bismarck's Prussia and would have been
wrong verb tense and not parrallel
User avatar
sleepynut
Joined: 29 Oct 2016
Last visit: 18 Jul 2017
Posts: 162
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 905
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 620 Q50 V24
GRE 1: Q167 V147
GMAT 1: 620 Q50 V24
GRE 1: Q167 V147
Posts: 162
Kudos: 90
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi mikemcgarry,
A historian attempting to predict in the 1870's which nation would take over world leadership from the British probably would have guessed Bismarck's Prussia and been quite wrong.

Pardon me as I'm not able to catch up with your explanation;I couldn't sense any subjunctive mood in this sentence at all.
IMHO,a historian predicted something in the past;hence the simple "would + v1" should be fine.

Could you please elaborate more on your reasoning?
Thanks
User avatar
mikemcgarry
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Last visit: 06 Aug 2018
Posts: 4,480
Own Kudos:
30,119
 [1]
Given Kudos: 130
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,480
Kudos: 30,119
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sleepynut
Hi mikemcgarry,
A historian attempting to predict in the 1870's which nation would take over world leadership from the British probably would have guessed Bismarck's Prussia and been quite wrong.

Pardon me as I'm not able to catch up with your explanation;I couldn't sense any subjunctive mood in this sentence at all.
IMHO,a historian predicted something in the past;hence the simple "would + v1" should be fine.

Could you please elaborate more on your reasoning?
Thanks
Dear sleepynut

I'm happy to respond. :-)

My friend, here you have to know a little history. You don't have to be an expert historian, but you have to realize that at no time did Germany become a dominant world power on the level that Britain had been for centuries. Bismarck and the Prussians united Germany, but they didn't go on to dominate all of Europe at that moment in history. The two World Wars in the 20th century were quite separate from Bismarck's time, and even in these, Germany twice tried to achieve greater military domination and twice failed. Germany in the present day is emerging as a world leader, not with military domination but with economic domination, and ironically, economic domination turns out to be much more powerful in the long run.

The meaning of the sentence depends on this. In other words, the hypothetical historians in the 1870s would have made this prediction that is contrary to fact. The historian in that time might have speculated that Bismarck & Germany were headed for domination of all of Europe, but that's not how events played out. Even if you don't know all this history, the sentence itself makes it clear that the hypothetical historians would have guessed and their guess would have been wrong.

The fact that they guessed something that ultimately did not take place means they made a guess that turned out to be contrary to fact. A contrary-to-fact past event is one of the principal uses of the subjunctive. Sensing the subjunctive often involves understanding meaning. If you only pay attention to individual verbs and ignore meaning, you will miss the subjunctive--in fact, you will miss 90% of what the GMAT SC is about. The GMAT SC is NOT a test of grammar! The GMAT SC is a test of meaning, and the job of grammar is to serve the meaning.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
User avatar
altairahmad
Joined: 27 Mar 2017
Last visit: 29 Jul 2021
Posts: 265
Own Kudos:
86
 [1]
Given Kudos: 406
Location: Saudi Arabia
GMAT 1: 700 Q47 V39
GPA: 3.36
Products:
GMAT 1: 700 Q47 V39
Posts: 265
Kudos: 86
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Please help !!!

As per my understanding, the use of 'would have' in conditional sentence is when the sentence contains past perfect. I do not see past perfect here.

Will appreciate your comment on this.
User avatar
generis
User avatar
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 22 May 2016
Last visit: 18 Jun 2022
Posts: 5,293
Own Kudos:
36,947
 [2]
Given Kudos: 9,464
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 5,293
Kudos: 36,947
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
A historian attempting to predict in the 1870's which nation would take over world leadership from the British probably would have guessed Bismarck's Prussia and been quite wrong.

(A) have guessed Bismarck's Prussia and been
(B) have guessed that it would have been Bismarck's Prussia and he would be
(C) have guessed Bismarck's Prussia and would be
(D) guess Bismarck's Prussia and be
(E) guess that it would be Bismarck's Prussia and would have been
altairahmad
Please help !!!
As per my understanding, the use of 'would have' in conditional sentence is when the sentence contains past perfect. I do not see past perfect here.

Will appreciate your comment on this.
Hi altairahmad , you ask a good question. +1

Sometimes hypothetical (and conditional) constructions will not explicitly contain the words you are looking for.
Those sentences can still use constructions without their "other halves."

True, you do not see past perfect here. That fact is okay.
The use of "would have" is not confined to situations in which the past perfect is stated explicitly.
"Would have" is used to express the unreal past.
If a sentence can construct an unreal past without past perfect, the use of "would have" is perfectly acceptable.

Not actually mentioning the first part of a hypothetical is rare.
My hat is off to the authors of this sentence.

What to do? Start with the time period. The options tell us that verbs are at issue.

We know from the context that we are dealing with the unreal past.

The sentence is talking about a hypothetical historian in the 1870s. ("A historian attempting to . . .)
The actions are also hypothetical.
Both guessing and being wrong are hypothetical. (A hypothetical historian also makes hypothetical guesses and is hypothetically wrong.)
So we are dealing with the unreal past.

Now we can speculate and get our past perfect.

The not-real historian did not actually guess.
But IF (counterfactually) she had guessed [past perfect!] which nation would take over she probably would _______ Bismark's Germany and _______ quite wrong

We could write the sentence with past perfect, this way:
If a historian had attempted to predict in the 1870s which nation would take over world leadership from the British, she probably would have guessed Bismark's Germany and [she would have] been quite wrong.

Would have guessed and would have been wrong are the verb tenses we use for the truly hypothetical: a not-real condition in the past and its not-real result in the future of the past.

Hope that helps. :) If not, ask another question. (You might want to try tagging. :) )
User avatar
altairahmad
Joined: 27 Mar 2017
Last visit: 29 Jul 2021
Posts: 265
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 406
Location: Saudi Arabia
GMAT 1: 700 Q47 V39
GPA: 3.36
Products:
GMAT 1: 700 Q47 V39
Posts: 265
Kudos: 86
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
generis
Quote:
Hope that helps. :) If not, ask another question. (You might want to try tagging. :) )

Thanks a lot. Your answer helped a lot.

Now I have another question, since the algorithm of 'if past perfect then conditional perfect' is out the window now, how do I differentiate between hypothetical conditions where simple conditional is needed, for which my previous algorithm was 'If simple past then conditional', and hypothetical conditions where conditional perfect is needed'. Do I have to bring in the 'perfect tense' argument that the action/effect has to remain true to this day ? If yes, then how do I apply the same on this question. 'have' points to the fact that the historian would have been wrong to the present day ?

For the most part, these conditional algorithms do work, but every now and then a question like this pops up and messes everything up.
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,450
Own Kudos:
Posts: 18,450
Kudos: 953
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7356 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
235 posts