It is currently 19 Feb 2018, 00:15

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# A recent court decision has qualified

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 30 Oct 2011
Posts: 13
Concentration: Operations, Finance
GMAT Date: 08-29-2013
GPA: 3.4
A recent court decision has qualified [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Oct 2015, 05:54
3
KUDOS
25
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

15% (low)

Question Stats:

74% (01:01) correct 26% (01:10) wrong based on 887 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers cannot be laid off if
they have been given reason to believe that their jobs will
be safe, provided that
their performance remains satisfactory.

(A) if they have been given reason to believe that their jobs will
(B) if they are given reason for believing that their jobs would still
(C) having been given reason for believing that their jobs would
(D) having been given reason to believe their jobs to
(E) given reason to believe that their jobs will still

Thanks
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1199
Location: India
Re: A recent court decision has qualified [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Oct 2015, 10:06
can someone explain why B is wrong.
Is it correct to use present perfect tense for "given reason?
_________________

The only time you can lose is when you give up. Try hard and you will suceed.
Thanks = Kudos. Kudos are appreciated

http://gmatclub.com/forum/rules-for-posting-in-verbal-gmat-forum-134642.html
When you post a question Pls. Provide its source & TAG your questions
Avoid posting from unreliable sources.

My posts
http://gmatclub.com/forum/beauty-of-coordinate-geometry-213760.html#p1649924
http://gmatclub.com/forum/calling-all-march-april-gmat-takers-who-want-to-cross-213154.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/possessive-pronouns-200496.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/double-negatives-206717.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/the-greatest-integer-function-223595.html#p1721773

Board of Directors
Status: QA & VA Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 3326
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
A recent court decision has qualified [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Oct 2015, 12:25
Nevernevergiveup wrote:
can someone explain why B is wrong.
Is it correct to use present perfect tense for "given reason?

B and C uses the word Would.

Hence B and C can be negated in my opinion.
_________________

Thanks and Regards

Abhishek....

PLEASE FOLLOW THE RULES FOR POSTING IN QA AND VA FORUM AND USE SEARCH FUNCTION BEFORE POSTING NEW QUESTIONS

How to use Search Function in GMAT Club | Rules for Posting in QA forum | Writing Mathematical Formulas |Rules for Posting in VA forum | Request Expert's Reply ( VA Forum Only )

Current Student
Joined: 05 Apr 2015
Posts: 446
Re: A recent court decision has qualified [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Oct 2015, 00:50
I am not sure if it is true but I feel "to believe" is better than "for believing" hence went with A.

Dom.
Manager
Joined: 08 Aug 2015
Posts: 51
Re: A recent court decision has qualified [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Oct 2015, 02:14
I thought this one was pretty obvious. Looking at the construction of the other four options, I found them lacking.

(A) if they have been given reason to believe that their jobs will - correct
(B) if they are given reason for believing that their jobs would still - Given reason is incorrect
(C) having been given reason for believing that their jobs would - 'having been' is not grammatically correct
(D) having been given reason to believe their jobs to - see above
(E) given reason to believe that their jobs will still - there's nothing connecting this to the sentence. The word 'if' before the start of this option would have made things very interesting
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 1190
Re: A recent court decision has qualified [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Oct 2015, 00:24
7
KUDOS
Expert's post
12
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Careful, vp101. The problem with B can't be "given reason," since that is used in A, too!

The issue is with "would," but this is a little tricky. For simpler clauses, it's easy: we don't use both "if" and "would" to mark the same hypothetical event. Rather, when using "if," we follow up with "would" to show the consequence:

If my car were stolen, I would be upset.

However, if our hypothetical/conditional has more than one action in it (as in the original Q), "would" may be appropriate:

If I thought that you would believe me, I'd tell you the whole story.

So what's the difference between this and the original? You might notice that here we're using what looks like past tense ("thought"), while in A and B we're using present perfect and present, respectively. Why the difference? My example is a hypothetical (subjunctive), while the original is a simple conditional. With conditionals, we don't even use "would" for the consequence:

If Karen's sandwich falls on the floor, she will still eat it. (It's a really good sandwich.)

Since the choices here are conditional and not subjunctive, we need to leave "would" out of the sentence entirely.
_________________

Dmitry Farber | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | New York

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile |
Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1199
Location: India
Re: A recent court decision has qualified [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Oct 2015, 03:49
DmitryFarber wrote:
Careful, vp101. The problem with B can't be "given reason," since that is used in A, too!

The issue is with "would," but this is a little tricky. For simpler clauses, it's easy: we don't use both "if" and "would" to mark the same hypothetical event. Rather, when using "if," we follow up with "would" to show the consequence:

If my car were stolen, I would be upset.

However, if our hypothetical/conditional has more than one action in it (as in the original Q), "would" may be appropriate:

If I thought that you would believe me, I'd tell you the whole story.

So what's the difference between this and the original? You might notice that here we're using what looks like past tense ("thought"), while in A and B we're using present perfect and present, respectively. Why the difference? My example is a hypothetical (subjunctive), while the original is a simple conditional. With conditionals, we don't even use "would" for the consequence:

If Karen's sandwich falls on the floor, she will still eat it. (It's a really good sandwich.)

Since the choices here are conditional and not subjunctive, we need to leave "would" out of the sentence entirely.

DmitryFarber

I got a bit confused regarding this concept.
_________________

The only time you can lose is when you give up. Try hard and you will suceed.
Thanks = Kudos. Kudos are appreciated

http://gmatclub.com/forum/rules-for-posting-in-verbal-gmat-forum-134642.html
When you post a question Pls. Provide its source & TAG your questions
Avoid posting from unreliable sources.

My posts
http://gmatclub.com/forum/beauty-of-coordinate-geometry-213760.html#p1649924
http://gmatclub.com/forum/calling-all-march-april-gmat-takers-who-want-to-cross-213154.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/possessive-pronouns-200496.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/double-negatives-206717.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/the-greatest-integer-function-223595.html#p1721773

Manager
Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Posts: 81
Re: A recent court decision has qualified [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Oct 2015, 08:00
DmitryFarber wrote:
Careful, vp101. The problem with B can't be "given reason," since that is used in A, too!

Hello DmitryFarber, can we use the tense to eliminate B, since A uses present perfect (have been given ), while B uses simple present (are given).
Moderator
Joined: 21 Jun 2014
Posts: 981
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT 1: 540 Q45 V20
GPA: 2.49
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: A recent court decision has qualified [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Oct 2015, 11:11
1
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Choice "A" is correct because:
If "if clause" uses present perfect tense then "main clause" (what comes after "then") should use "will/shall".

Choice "B" is wrong because:
If "if clause" uses present tense then "main clause" (what comes after "then") should use :
a) present tense verb (in case of certainty)
b) "will" (in case of prediction)

"would" is completely wrong in choice "B".

+1 for Kudos
_________________

---------------------------------------------------------------
Target - 720-740
http://gmatclub.com/forum/information-on-new-gmat-esr-report-beta-221111.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/list-of-one-year-full-time-mba-programs-222103.html

Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1199
Location: India
Re: A recent court decision has qualified [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Nov 2015, 01:26
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
HKD1710 wrote:
Choice "A" is correct because:
If "if clause" uses present perfect tense then "main clause" (what comes after "then") should use "will/shall".

Choice "B" is wrong because:
If "if clause" uses present tense then "main clause" (what comes after "then") should use :
a) present tense verb (in case of certainty)
b) "will" (in case of prediction)

"would" is completely wrong in choice "B".

+1 for Kudos

Your reasoning is correct regarding the choice B. Thanks for reminding me this rule.
But regarding A, can u find the reference info regarding usage of present perfect tense in if clause.
_________________

The only time you can lose is when you give up. Try hard and you will suceed.
Thanks = Kudos. Kudos are appreciated

http://gmatclub.com/forum/rules-for-posting-in-verbal-gmat-forum-134642.html
When you post a question Pls. Provide its source & TAG your questions
Avoid posting from unreliable sources.

My posts
http://gmatclub.com/forum/beauty-of-coordinate-geometry-213760.html#p1649924
http://gmatclub.com/forum/calling-all-march-april-gmat-takers-who-want-to-cross-213154.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/possessive-pronouns-200496.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/double-negatives-206717.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/the-greatest-integer-function-223595.html#p1721773

Moderator
Joined: 21 Jun 2014
Posts: 981
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT 1: 540 Q45 V20
GPA: 2.49
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: A recent court decision has qualified [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Nov 2015, 07:20
1
KUDOS
Mechmeera wrote:
HKD1710 wrote:
Choice "A" is correct because:
If "if clause" uses present perfect tense then "main clause" (what comes after "then") should use "will/shall".

Choice "B" is wrong because:
If "if clause" uses present tense then "main clause" (what comes after "then") should use :
a) present tense verb (in case of certainty)
b) "will" (in case of prediction)

"would" is completely wrong in choice "B".

+1 for Kudos

Your reasoning is correct regarding the choice B. Thanks for reminding me this rule.
But regarding A, can u find the reference info regarding usage of present perfect tense in if clause.

I read it in some grammar book and made a note of it. here is a little elaboration of the rule:
The Rule mentioned for choice "A" is valid for present/present continuous/present perfect tense i.e. when if clause uses any of these tenses then main clause should use "will/shall". This rule is applicable when prediction is made.
_________________

---------------------------------------------------------------
Target - 720-740
http://gmatclub.com/forum/information-on-new-gmat-esr-report-beta-221111.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/list-of-one-year-full-time-mba-programs-222103.html

Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 1190
Re: A recent court decision has qualified [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Nov 2015, 13:14
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
To clarify my earlier post, we want to use "would" if there's a clear condition that we're describing and that conditional is described hypothetical:

If X happened, Y would also happen.
If you helped me, I would be grateful.
I would go to the party if there were a good band playing.

If we make a simple if-then statement, we don't use "would". Notice that the main difference in the "if" part is that we don't use a past form of the verb.

If X happens, Y will also happen.
If you help me, I will be grateful.
I will go to the party if there is a good band playing

So we don't want to use "would" in B because we're not using a hypothetical. We didn't say "if they were given reasons."
_________________

Dmitry Farber | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | New York

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile |
Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Intern
Joined: 19 Jul 2016
Posts: 9
Re: A recent court decision has qualified [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Aug 2016, 02:19
hi,
I am not sure whether "having been given" is a correct modifier or not. What does "having been given" modify?
Intern
Joined: 04 Aug 2016
Posts: 4
Re: A recent court decision has qualified [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2016, 23:17
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
WZP wrote:
hi,
I am not sure whether "having been given" is a correct modifier or not. What does "having been given" modify?

I believe it is incorrect.
As far as I know, -ing modifiers without comma modify a preceding noun. In this sentence, there is no noun "having been given" can modify.

-ing modifiers are actually resulting from ellipsis of nominative relative pronoun clauses.
You can ellipt nominative relative pronoun clauses when ①the clause is not in present perfect tense, and ②it does not have a helping verb.
When you ellipt a relative pronoun, you will also need to modify a verb: "to be" verb →simply eliminate / other verbs → change it to "-ing" form.

e.g. I met a man who eats Tofu every day.
I met a man eating Tofu everyday.

Apply this rule to the sentence.
...that workers cannot be laid off having been given..
...that workers cannot be laid off who had been given...
↑the relative pronoun clause incorrectly modifies "workers". More precisely, the clause cannot modify "workers" which is the only noun here. Therefore, "having been given" is an incorrect modifier.
(since "had been" is past perfect tense and not present perfect tense, we can ellipt relative pronoun clauses here)

Hope this helps.

Thanks.
Manager
Joined: 18 Sep 2015
Posts: 108
GMAT 1: 610 Q43 V31
GMAT 2: 610 Q47 V27
GMAT 3: 650 Q48 V31
GMAT 4: 700 Q49 V35
WE: Project Management (Health Care)
Re: A recent court decision has qualified [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2016, 13:42
anshul1208 wrote:
A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers cannot be laid off if
they have been given reason to believe that their jobs will
be safe, provided that
their performance remains satisfactory.

(A) if they have been given reason to believe that their jobs will
(B) if they are given reason for believing that their jobs would still
(C) having been given reason for believing that their jobs would
(D) having been given reason to believe their jobs to
(E) given reason to believe that their jobs will still

Thanks

This question was a bit tricky.
A.
- we have 2 options for "if..then" clause in the present.
1. present + present: "if you freeze water, it turns into ice"
2. present +future: "if you learn hard, you will succeed".

If "workers have been given reason to believe that their jobs will be safe" then they cannot be laid off.

The tricky part is that usually the first part is present simple and not present perfect.
Now, the meaning that they have been given a reason to believe in the past and they are still believing that reason holds.

B+C are out since "reason for believing" is unidiomatic.

D. "their jobs to be safe" does not make any sense + this is not the correct use of "having ..."

E. does not properly connect to the rest of the sentence in a meaningful way. "Given" clearly relates to workers, and hence a noun modifier, but it does not touch the noun it suppose to modify. E is out.
Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2016
Posts: 300
Location: India
GPA: 3.9
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: A recent court decision has qualified [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Feb 2017, 17:49
If I understand the structure well, this is the construction of if-else

workers cannot be laid off if they are given reason for believing that their jobs would still be safe
or
if they are given reason for believing that their jobs would still be safe, workers cannot be laid off

1. Three usage of If-else

Present simple, present/future simple-- If I go there, she will come.

past simple, would-- If she played, the team would win.

past perfect, would have--- if I had played, the team would have won the match

Can uasge in if-else construction: Is it correct to use "can" in else construction?

If I play, you can win the match. Is it incorrect?

2. A sentence from DmitryFarber's post

If I thought that you would believe me, I'd tell you the whole story.

If above sentence is correct, why the below one can not be correct?

if they are given reason for believing that their jobs would still be safe, workers cannot be laid off.
Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2016
Posts: 300
Location: India
GPA: 3.9
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: A recent court decision has qualified [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Feb 2017, 17:50
If I understand the structure well, this is the construction of if-else

workers cannot be laid off if they are given reason for believing that their jobs would still be safe
or
if they are given reason for believing that their jobs would still be safe, workers cannot be laid off

1. Three usage of If-else

Present simple, present/future simple-- If I go there, she will come.

past simple, would-- If she played, the team would win.

past perfect, would have--- if I had played, the team would have won the match

Can uasge in if-else construction: Is it correct to use "can" in else construction?

If I play, you can win the match. Is it incorrect?

2. A sentence from DmitryFarber's post

If I thought that you would believe me, I'd tell you the whole story.

If above sentence is correct, why the below one can not be correct?

if they are given reason for believing that their jobs would still be safe, workers cannot be laid off.
Verbal Expert
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3315
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
A recent court decision has qualified [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Feb 2017, 04:06
AR15J wrote:
If I understand the structure well, this is the construction of if-else

workers cannot be laid off if they are given reason for believing that their jobs would still be safe
or
if they are given reason for believing that their jobs would still be safe, workers cannot be laid off

1. Three usage of If-else

Present simple, present/future simple-- If I go there, she will come.

past simple, would-- If she played, the team would win.

past perfect, would have--- if I had played, the team would have won the match

Can uasge in if-else construction: Is it correct to use "can" in else construction?

If I play, you can win the match. Is it incorrect?

2. A sentence from DmitryFarber's post

If I thought that you would believe me, I'd tell you the whole story.

If above sentence is correct, why the below one can not be correct?

if they are given reason for believing that their jobs would still be safe, workers cannot be laid off.

Yes, correct.

The two sentences you mentioned do not have the same construction. To match with the first sentence, your sentence should have been:

If they are were given reason for believing to believe that their jobs would still be safe, workers can COULD not be laid off.

Compare with the first sentence you gave as example:
If I though that you would believe me, I'd (I would) tell you the whole story.

The matching verbs are marked in same colour. Blue ones are in hypothetical subjunctive mood ( simple past), pink ones are future from perspective of past, and the green ones are conditional ( past forms of future).

One standard IF-THEN structure (unlikely future event) is: IF hypothetical subjunctive ( blue font), THEN conditional ( green font).

Moreover "reason for believing" is idiomatically wrong - the correct usage is " reason to believe".
Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2016
Posts: 300
Location: India
GPA: 3.9
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
A recent court decision has qualified [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Feb 2017, 04:52
sayantanc2k wrote:
AR15J wrote:
If I understand the structure well, this is the construction of if-else

workers cannot be laid off if they are given reason for believing that their jobs would still be safe
or
if they are given reason for believing that their jobs would still be safe, workers cannot be laid off

1. Three usage of If-else

Present simple, present/future simple-- If I go there, she will come.

past simple, would-- If she played, the team would win.

past perfect, would have--- if I had played, the team would have won the match

Can uasge in if-else construction: Is it correct to use "can" in else construction?

If I play, you can win the match. Is it incorrect?

2. A sentence from DmitryFarber's post

If I thought that you would believe me, I'd tell you the whole story.

If above sentence is correct, why the below one can not be correct?

if they are given reason for believing that their jobs would still be safe, workers cannot be laid off.

Yes, correct.

The two sentences you mentioned do not have the same construction. To match with the first sentence, your sentence should have been:

If they are were given reason for believing to believe that their jobs would still be safe, workers can COULD not be laid off.

Compare with the first sentence you gave as example:
If I though that you would believe me, I'd (I would) tell you the whole story.

The matching verbs are marked in same colour. Blue ones are in hypothetical subjunctive mood ( simple past), pink ones are future from perspective of past, and the green ones are conditional ( past forms of future).

One standard IF-THEN structure (unlikely future event) is: IF hypothetical subjunctive ( blue font), THEN conditional ( green font).

Moreover "reason for believing" is idiomatically wrong - the correct usage is " reason to believe".

Thanks sayantanc2k. Your detailed explanation always helps.

1. I know only three construction of if-else, the one I mentioned in the first point.

The below construction is correct?

if present perfect, then can/may /future simple

Ex- If she has gone through the documentation, she can start analyzing the new case.

2.
1.Present simple, present/future simple-- If I go there, she will come.

2. past simple, would-- If she played, the team would win.

3. past perfect, would have--- if I had played, the team would have won the match

Which of the below constructions is correct?

If I had 10 papers, I would complete the homework

If I had 10 papers, I would have completed the homework.

I am confused that the usage of had(not as past perfect )will be considered in second or third type of if-else usage
Verbal Expert
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3315
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
A recent court decision has qualified [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Feb 2017, 11:25
AR15J wrote:
sayantanc2k wrote:
AR15J wrote:
If I understand the structure well, this is the construction of if-else

workers cannot be laid off if they are given reason for believing that their jobs would still be safe
or
if they are given reason for believing that their jobs would still be safe, workers cannot be laid off

1. Three usage of If-else

Present simple, present/future simple-- If I go there, she will come.

past simple, would-- If she played, the team would win.

past perfect, would have--- if I had played, the team would have won the match

Can uasge in if-else construction: Is it correct to use "can" in else construction?

If I play, you can win the match. Is it incorrect?

2. A sentence from DmitryFarber's post

If I thought that you would believe me, I'd tell you the whole story.

If above sentence is correct, why the below one can not be correct?

if they are given reason for believing that their jobs would still be safe, workers cannot be laid off.

Yes, correct.

The two sentences you mentioned do not have the same construction. To match with the first sentence, your sentence should have been:

If they are were given reason for believing to believe that their jobs would still be safe, workers can COULD not be laid off.

Compare with the first sentence you gave as example:
If I though that you would believe me, I'd (I would) tell you the whole story.

The matching verbs are marked in same colour. Blue ones are in hypothetical subjunctive mood ( simple past), pink ones are future from perspective of past, and the green ones are conditional ( past forms of future).

One standard IF-THEN structure (unlikely future event) is: IF hypothetical subjunctive ( blue font), THEN conditional ( green font).

Moreover "reason for believing" is idiomatically wrong - the correct usage is " reason to believe".

Thanks sayantanc2k. Your detailed explanation always helps.

1. I know only three construction of if-else, the one I mentioned in the first point.

The below construction is correct?

if present perfect, then can/may /future simple

Ex- If she has gone through the documentation, she can start analyzing the new case.

2.
1.Present simple, present/future simple-- If I go there, she will come.

2. past simple, would-- If she played, the team would win.

3. past perfect, would have--- if I had played, the team would have won the match

Which of the below constructions is correct?

If I had 10 papers, I would complete the homework

If I had 10 papers, I would have completed the homework.

I am confused that the usage of had(not as past perfect )will be considered in second or third type of if-else usage

The first one is correct: IF hypothetical subjunctive (simple past), THEN conditional (would).... unlilkely future event.

The second construction would be correct, if it were:
If I had had 10 papers, I would have completed the homework.
This now becomes of the form: IF past perfect, THEN conditional perfect... event that never happened in past.

(Note that "had had" is the past perfect of the verb "to have".)
A recent court decision has qualified   [#permalink] 05 Feb 2017, 11:25

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 26 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by