ishan95jaiswal wrote:
When to use WILL/WOULD ?
(1) Use WILL to refer to some event that will happen in the future in relation
to the present
(2) And use WOULD to refer to the future in the past.In the question Proposed is written which means past therefore we will use constructions which have WOULD in them.
If it would have been proposal instead of proposed we would have used WILL.
(C) A proposed law
will require citizens to curb potential fraud by bringing photo ID to polling places when they vote.
(D) A proposed law
will curb potential fraud by requiring citizens to vote at polling places with photo ID.
So eliminate C and D.
Now we're are left with A, B and E
(A) A proposed law would require citizens to bring photo ID to polling places
when they vote to curb potential fraud.Option A completely destroys the intended meaning and sounds as if people are voting to curb potential fraud.
Between option B and E :-
Option E though grammatically correct but is incorrect Because -
(E) To curb potential fraud, a
proposed law
requires citizens to bring photo ID to polling places when they vote.
E is stating a fact that is - proposed law requires which is incorrect because proposal won't require anything. It will be the 'Passed' Law that will require something.
Until the Law is passed it is just a proposal and proposal doesn't mandate anyone to do something. So requires with proposal is incorrect.
Hence the Correct Answer is
Option B.
Please Give Kudos!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