GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

 It is currently 27 Jan 2020, 10:46

### 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

# A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 05 Mar 2015
Posts: 41
Location: Azerbaijan
GMAT 1: 530 Q42 V21
GMAT 2: 600 Q42 V31
GMAT 3: 700 Q47 V38
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Sep 2018, 02:04
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

"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"

this is original 1998 ruling or qualification of court?
Manager
Joined: 04 Oct 2017
Posts: 73
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2018, 19:12
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

I was stuck between A and C and chose C. What is wrong with C? Please explain.
Intern
Joined: 13 Jul 2018
Posts: 8
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
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Sep 2013
Posts: 315
Location: India
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GPA: 4
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2019, 23:38
DmitryFarber

Thank 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
MagooshExpert

In 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.

Thank you
Director
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 953
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: 953
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 ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by