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 Your Progress
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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
Updated on: 05 Apr 2018, 04:35
3
30
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
15% (low)
Question Stats:
74% (00:59) correct 26% (01:07) wrong based on 1246 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
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
31 Oct 2015, 01:24
9
14
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
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
28 Oct 2015, 11:06
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.
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
30 Oct 2015, 03:14
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
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
31 Oct 2015, 04:49
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.
I got a bit confused regarding this concept. can u please elaborate further.
_________________
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.
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
31 Oct 2015, 12:11
1
3
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)
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
01 Nov 2015, 02:26
1
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.
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
01 Nov 2015, 08:20
1
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.
_________________
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
23 Nov 2015, 14:14
2
2
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
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
03 Oct 2016, 00:17
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)
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
18 Oct 2016, 14:42
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
Can anyone briefly explain the answer please? 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.
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
04 Feb 2017, 18:49
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.
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
04 Feb 2017, 18:50
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.
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
05 Feb 2017, 05:06
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.
Your point 1: Yes, correct.
Your point 2:
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 canCOULD 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".
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
05 Feb 2017, 05:52
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.
Your point 1: Yes, correct.
Your point 2:
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 canCOULD 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
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
05 Feb 2017, 12:25
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.
Your point 1: Yes, correct.
Your point 2:
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 canCOULD 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".)
gmatclubot
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno &nbs
[#permalink]
05 Feb 2017, 12:25
close
74% (00:59) correct 
