|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2016
Posts: 280
Location: India
GPA: 3.9
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
|
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
 05 Feb 2017, 21:05
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3186
Location: Germany
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
|
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
06 Feb 2017, 03:33
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?1. When I mentioned "The first one is correct", I referred to the first sentence of your point 3: "If I had 10 papers, I would complete the homework". This is an example of an unlikely future event. Hence the structure IF hypothetical subjunctive (simple past), THEN conditional (would).... is alright. Now coming to your Point 1: If she has gone through the documentation, she can start analyzing the new case... correct. This is not a case of unlikely future event. Hence the structure IF hypothetical subjunctive (simple past), THEN conditional (would).... is not applicable. This example states an ordinary if-then structure, in which the tenses depict their standard usage. The sentence implies: Pre-requisite: She has (already) gone through the document. Result if the pre-requisite is satisfied: She can start analysing. 2. If we had looked at the map, we wouldn't be lost. The above sentence is wrong. Correct would be: a. If we had looked at the map, we wouldn't be lost. (unlikely future event) OR b. If we had looked at the map, we wouldn't be have been lost. (past event that never happened) 3. "When" and "if" have two different meanings. "When" confirms that the event will happen, but "if" indicates that the event may or may not happen. I shall meet you, when I am ready. ( implies: I shall be ready at a point of time, and when i am, I shall meet you). I shall meet you, if I am ready. (implies: I may or may not be ready - if i am, i shall meet you.) Coming to your sentences: When I will go to market, I will bring fruits for you... wrong When I go to the market, I will bring fruits for you... correct. (same structure as that of if-then)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 20 Jun 2017
Posts: 76
Location: India
GPA: 4
|
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
28 Jun 2017, 05:02
(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 - usage of would is wrong (are given)
(C) having been given reason for believing that their jobs would - usage of having being is wrong (it is used to talk about something that is over)
(D) having been given reason to believe their jobs to - same as C
(E) given reason to believe that their jobs will still - condition has been removed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mannheim Thread Master
Status: It's now or never
Joined: 10 Feb 2017
Posts: 252
Location: India
GPA: 3
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
|
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
14 Aug 2017, 10:21
Accurate idoims are used - A is correct.
_________________
2017-2018 MBA Deadlines
Threadmaster for B-school Discussions
Class of 2019: Mannheim Business School
Class 0f 2020: HHL Leipzig
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 18 Feb 2017
Posts: 89
Location: India
GPA: 3.35
|
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
23 Sep 2017, 11:49
please explain the concept behind the use of present perfect in if clause and tell the complete rule to use it(if rule+then rule)
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 18 Feb 2017
Posts: 89
Location: India
GPA: 3.35
|
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
16 Feb 2018, 00:06
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. hello sir how can we use if+ present perfect? is there any other forms used in GMAT and please elaborate if there is such
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 1289
|
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
28 Feb 2018, 23:33
JAIN09 It's fine to use if + present perfect, as A correctly does. We're just saying that if X has been happening, Y can/will happen. A few more examples: If the defendant has been lying, he will spend a long time in jail. If you have been studying effectively, you should see an increase in your score. If your parents have been arguing again, I will stay away. If the desserts have all been eaten, we need to make some more!
_________________
Dmitry Farber | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | New York
Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile |
Manhattan GMAT Reviews
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 289
|
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
28 Mar 2018, 07:34
Quote: 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
Can anyone briefly explain the answer please?
Thanks Hi mikemcgarry, GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja, MagooshExpert Carolyn, sayantanc2k, I need your help to clarify what's the role of last participial part, provided that their performance remains satisfactory.
I don't understand, #1 if v-ed modifies the preceding part, then I thought it is illogical because " provided that their performance remains satisfactory" illogical modifies " their job will be safe", it makes no sense to give reason to believe by remaining performance satisfactory similarly, illogical modifies " they have been given reason to believe", it is strange to believe something by remaining performance satisfactory. #2, if v-ed is a part of main verb, then why there is no AND? if it parallel with "have been given reason" , AND should be connected two main verbs, -- have been given reason AND (have been) provided, which omits have been
Please help Thanks in advance Have a nice day >_~
|
|
|
|
|
|
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 157
|
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
30 Mar 2018, 19:39
zoezhuyan wrote: Hi mikemcgarry, GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja, MagooshExpert Carolyn, sayantanc2k, I need your help to clarify what's the role of last participial part, provided that their performance remains satisfactory.
I don't understand, #1 if v-ed modifies the preceding part, then I thought it is illogical because " provided that their performance remains satisfactory" illogical modifies " their job will be safe", it makes no sense to give reason to believe by remaining performance satisfactory similarly, illogical modifies " they have been given reason to believe", it is strange to believe something by remaining performance satisfactory. #2, if v-ed is a part of main verb, then why there is no AND? if it parallel with "have been given reason" , AND should be connected two main verbs, -- have been given reason AND (have been) provided, which omits have been
Please help Thanks in advance Have a nice day >_~ Hi zoezhuyan! Happy to help  The word "provided" is actually not acting as a verb or participle here -- "provided that" is a conjunction. It basically means "if", or "as long as". So we can treat "provided that" as the word "if", which isn't modifying anything, it's just connecting different parts of the sentence: 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, if their performance remains satisfactory.Of course, "if" doesn't sound great in this sentence, since we already have "if" appearing earlier, so we can use something like "provided that", "given that", or "as long as" instead. These phrases all act as conjunctions, in the same way. So we don't have to worry about modifiers here Hope that helps! -Carolyn
_________________
Magoosh Test Prep
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 289
|
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
31 Mar 2018, 03:43
MagooshExpert wrote: zoezhuyan wrote: Hi mikemcgarry, GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja, MagooshExpert Carolyn, sayantanc2k, I need your help to clarify what's the role of last participial part, provided that their performance remains satisfactory.
I don't understand, #1 if v-ed modifies the preceding part, then I thought it is illogical because " provided that their performance remains satisfactory" illogical modifies " their job will be safe", it makes no sense to give reason to believe by remaining performance satisfactory similarly, illogical modifies " they have been given reason to believe", it is strange to believe something by remaining performance satisfactory. #2, if v-ed is a part of main verb, then why there is no AND? if it parallel with "have been given reason" , AND should be connected two main verbs, -- have been given reason AND (have been) provided, which omits have been
Please help Thanks in advance Have a nice day >_~ Hi zoezhuyan! Happy to help The word "provided" is actually not acting as a verb or participle here -- "provided that" is a conjunction. It basically means "if", or "as long as". So we can treat "provided that" as the word "if", which isn't modifying anything, it's just connecting different parts of the sentence: 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, if their performance remains satisfactory.Of course, "if" doesn't sound great in this sentence, since we already have "if" appearing earlier, so we can use something like "provided that", "given that", or "as long as" instead. These phrases all act as conjunctions, in the same way. So we don't have to worry about modifiers here Hope that helps! -Carolyn Thanks Carolyn. MagooshExperti am so embarrased . if "provided that" were underlined, i would have made mistake. Have a nice day, Carolyn. >_~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno &nbs
[#permalink]
31 Mar 2018, 03:43
|
|
|
|
|
Go to page
Previous
1 2
[ 30 posts ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
close
