A proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling pla

Citizens ..... when they vote to curb potential fraud? Wow. Great idea. I would love to vote to curb potential fraud, who won't?

But, is that the intended meaning here? Nopes, I'm afraid not. The meaning is: to curb the potential fraud, citizens have to bring their ID along with them when they come to vote.

(A) A proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling places when they vote to curb potential fraud. Not the intended meaning.

(B) To curb potential fraud, a proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling places when they vote. Correct. Intended meaning + subjunctive 'would' + to form of verb. Perfect!

(C) A proposed law will require citizens to curb potential fraud by bringing photo ID to polling places when they vote. Duhh! Not the intended meaning again.

(D) A proposed law will curb potential fraud by requiring citizens to vote at polling places with photo ID. Vote with a photo ID? Hilarious.

(E) To curb potential fraud, a proposed law requires citizens to bring photo ID to polling places when they vote. Requires? It is a law of the land or what?

Could you please explain a little bit more about the usage of would conditional as is used in statement b?
dont we require an "if" statement for conditionals?
chetan2u daagh
Posted from my mobile device

Hi..

Here would is not used in conditional form but as a possibility of something.
However in B, I am really not sure if it makes sense..
On one hand we are saying proposed law that is it is already made and being discussed now and on the other hand we are not sure what it contains..

It could have been correct in many other ways..
# To curb potential fraud, a new law would require.....
# A proposed law requiring .... would curb potential fraud.

So B may be the best here, but 'would' just not fits in and c

GMATNinja daagh mikemcgarry DmitryFarber chetan2u please can u help with option E:
The law is "proposed" and not yet implemented .
The verb tense "would" will be inappropriate here as the law that is PROPOSED REQUIRES bla bla bla. If we add "would" we are basically uncertain about the plan and what it actually is proposing..
It's more like we are making a guess about the proposed alaw.

In contrast to B, E is much clearer.
The law is proposed and if implemented, the law will require bla bla bla.... here we are certain as to what actually the law will do

Secondly, the law is PROPOSED and has not yet been implemented so using the verb "would" would be redundant right?
proposal itself tells us that this thing hasnt happened.

Proposed law: law- noun , proposed- adjective

What you did is separate the adjective and then turn it into a noun and exploit the noun meaning.

According to your reasoning , I can fairly say - a discriminatory law will not be fair to every race.

law- noun , discriminatory - adjective
In parallel to your REASONING-
Law- noun , discrimination- noun

So ACCORDING TO YOU, discrimination will be fair . But the law will not be fair. Or vice versa.. but both cannot be fair and unfair at the same time ( according to your analysis)

Similarly, the above analysis, stands for both B and E and every option that has "proposed law" and hence the same error persists in every option.

So I can fairly state that, " proposed law" is faulty but that fault persists in every option. Cool

Moving forward,

Proposal - Something which is proposed, or offered for consideration or acceptance

Now when you write a law , do you write it with "possibility", I mean if you pass a law , can I ( according to you) challenge the law by saying it is useless as it says " would" and hence has no certainty..


Usage of would :
1) when talking about future with respect to past
2) when you are not certain about the result

To curtail bla bla bla, a proposed law -
Has this thing happened in the past? If so how do you know? The author could be talking about the future... The law has been "proposed" that is true ,but has the law been abolished and is it implemented to state that the proposed law was in the past? Yes the action of proposing is in the past but the context is still in present
Why? Because I have proposed it for a goal , has that goal reached?no is the law implemented?no...

A proposed law requires is not a fact- your reasoning !
Fact- something which is true.
Now when I propose something , I make a memo of it, at least a proposed law is something solid and has clear indications as to what it will, if passed, require.
So a proposed law can require- proposed law can have requirements and it is a fact... Fact is not what generally is true...fact is what is true...

Now when writting a proposal, the concerns/demands/ requests are fairly stated . And then published forward for consideration.
If I say a proposed law "would " require , I haven't yet drafted a proposal and submitted it and hence I'm still unsure what exactly I'm going to propose .
This is not the case in this question because we are certain on our goal and we have already proposed a law...so there's no uncertainty with respect to requirements...

I agree with the Frist part - would is used in past...
But disagree with rest of your analysis...
Especially the part where you broke down the "proposal - law"...

Posted from my mobile device

Can 'they' refer to places as well??

Hi Shyam, yes they can refer to places.

However, in this sentence, they is referring to citizens.

So we dont necessarily need to point t out the pronoun ambiguity in the options??

Posted from my mobile device

So we dont necessarily need to point out the pronoun ambiguity in the options??

Posted from my mobile device

Hi Shyam, generally, pronouns ambiguity should only be used as a tie-breaker between two options (if both options seem correct in all other respects).

Don’t we have to use a time expression before “when”?

Posted from my mobile device

A proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling places when they vote to curb potential fraud.

This question tests you on Modifiers and meaning. When modifiers modify something other than what they are supposed to modify, the meaning of the sentence changes to a great extent.

(A) A proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling places when they vote to curb potential fraud.
The modifier “to curb potential fraud” is placed next to “vote”. This means that a proposed law requires citizens to bring photo id when they vote to curb potential fraud. Illogical. Eliminate

(B) To curb potential fraud, a proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling places when they vote.
“To cut potential fraud” modifies “a proposed law”. It is to curb potential fraud that the proposed law would require people to carry their photo ID when they vote. Correct.

(C) A proposed law will require citizens to curb potential fraud by bringing photo ID to polling places when they vote.
The law wouldn't require citizens to curb potential fraud by bringing photo ID. Eliminate.

(D) A proposed law will curb potential fraud by requiring citizens to vote at polling places with photo ID.
A proposed law will curb potential fraud by requiring citizens to vote with photo ID. Is that how the law is going to curb potential fraud? Illogical. Eliminate.

(E) To curb potential fraud, a proposed law requires citizens to bring photo ID to polling places when they vote.

We are talking about a “proposed law- one that is yet to be in effect”. Hence the use of present tense is incorrect. Eliminate.

Vishnupriya
GMAT Verbal SME

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.