|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 236
|
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
 26 Sep 2018, 15:28
Kezia9 wrote: I was stuck between A and C and chose C. What is wrong with C? Please explain. Hi Kezia9! Happy to help  Let's take a look at C: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers cannot be laid off having been given reason for believing that their jobs would be safe, provided that their performance remains satisfactory.First of all, "having been given reason"... yikes!! That sounds extremely wordy, and it's very unlikely that this would be the best way to express this idea. That should be a tipoff right away that C is not going to be the best option. Second, "having been X" or "having done" is used to describe an action that happened before another action in the past. For example: The student, having finished her homework, went to bed.This tells us that the student first finished her homework and then went to bed. But here, we don't have any other past action. The workers, having been given reason, did what? We can't use this verb tense if we don't have two different actions that happened in the past. And finally, "reason for believing" is an incorrect idiom; we need to use "reason to believe". I hope that helps! -Carolyn
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 13 Jul 2018
Posts: 8
Concentration: International Business, General Management
|
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
Updated on: 20 Nov 2018, 03:30
Here"If" is used with present perfect tense while what I have studied
If can be used only with
1. present simple
2. simple past
3. past perfect
Kindly help in understanding this sentence
Originally posted by arpitalewe on 19 Nov 2018, 06:35.
Last edited by arpitalewe on 20 Nov 2018, 03:30, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 16 Dec 2014
Posts: 2
|
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
19 Nov 2018, 12:45
GMATNinja A lot has been said about conditionals here, and i got all the rules. What i am not able to do that is identify XXX and YYY in the structure If XXX, then YYY
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2993
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46 GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
|
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
08 Jan 2019, 16:50
ratsvijay wrote: GMATNinja A lot has been said about conditionals here, and i got all the rules. What i am not able to do that is identify XXX and YYY in the structure If XXX, then YYY This is a good reminder that language is fluid - you don't want to be so rigid in your expectations that a simple structural change ruins your ability to tackle a question. Typically, the If/then structure will contain the "if" clause first. For example, "If I forget to wear pants to the opera, my wife will pretend she does not know me." But it's perfectly legitimate to flip the order and write, "My wife will pretend she does not know me if I forget to wear pants to the opera." The same is true in the OA for this question. The "then" clause comes first: "Workers cannot be laid off if they have been given reason to believe that their jobs will be safe." This is, for all intents and purposes, the same as "If they have been given reason to believe that their jobs will be safe, workers cannot be laid off." The takeaway: do not try to memorize dozens and dozens of structures and then expect to see those structures in a form that resembles what you memorized! Yes, some rules are worth internalizing, but ultimately, you need to use context and logic, while remaining flexible enough to adapt to a variety of scenarios. Some related ideas can be found in this article. I hope that helps!
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Sep 2013
Posts: 315
Location: India
GPA: 4
|
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
04 Jun 2019, 23:38
DmitryFarberThank you for eligantly describing the usage of if- conditional. I have a doubt. Here shouldn't the "will" be in the main clause. I will work, if you are happy. The placement of will is in the main clause and the if conditional is used in the dependant clause. Shouldn't the same case be here? A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers /cannot/"will" not be laid off if they have been given reason to believe xyz. Besides, can have been treated in the same manner as "are" for the use of conditional? Posted from my mobile device
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 09 Mar 2017
Posts: 33
|
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
01 Jul 2019, 06:47
MagooshExpertIn the correct answer choice "If - then" construction, present perfect has been used in the "if" part. I went over MGMAT and E-gmat and there are no examples used showing present perfect in the "if" section. Please help  Thank you
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 927
|
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
02 Jul 2019, 09:06
AR15J wrote: Thanks sayantanc2k. 1.Second Point understood. But there is a confusion with the first point The first one is correct: IF hypothetical subjunctive (simple past), THEN conditional (would).... unlikely future event.
However, in first point, I used present perfect instead of hypothetical subjunctive or simple past. Please explain how is it correct.Ex- If she has gone through the documentation, she can start analyzing the new case. 2. I got more confused when I read mixed conditional sentences. http://www.ef.com/english-resources/eng ... nditional/If we had looked at the map, we wouldn't be lost. Is it the correct usage in GMAT?3. Often, "when" can be replaced by "if" (for first type of conditional) (if may often be replaced by when --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_sentence) So, when we make the sentences using "when" , we should use the rules of "if else"? when I will go to market, I will bring fruits for you. When I go to the market, I will bring fruits for you. Which one of the above is correct?thank you for citing the page. it is good in mixed condition, we want to say that if this thing had happened in the past, that thing would happen at present. we imagine that in the past this thing had happen, though, this thing had not happened in the past. so, a condition is in the past and its result is in present. the verb form in the condition in the past is "had done'. the verb form of result in present is "would do". think that these verb forms are not relevant to normal verb forms about present, future ore past we use everyday. if 3 years ago I had passed gmat, I would have MBA from Havard now. 3 years ago, I did not pass gmat. and now, I have no MBA from Havard. but I wish I had passed GMAT 3 years ago and if this thing had happened, I would have Havard MBA now. but both condition and its result is impossible unreal situation, which never is possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 927
|
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
02 Aug 2019, 20:47
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. thank you expert, your explanation is great. I want to make it more clear. if if-clause has TWO ACTIONs, these two action must be the same time frame. the present time frame include: do, will do the past time frame include: did, would do. in our example, choice a contain 2 actions in the same time frame, which is present time frame and include : do, will do in the expert example, the 2 actions in the same time frame, which is past time frame and include: did, would do. choice b put 2 actions in different time frame, present and future, do and would do, so, choice b is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
02 Aug 2019, 20:47
|
|
|
|
|
Go to page
Previous
1 2
[ 28 posts ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
close
