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:
Kick off your 2019 GMAT prep with a free 7-day boot camp that includes free online lessons, webinars, and a full GMAT course access. Limited for the first 99 registrants! Feb. 21st until the 27th.
A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
Updated on: 16 Jan 2019, 05:14
3
55
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
25% (medium)
Question Stats:
74% (01:20) correct 26% (01:31) wrong based on 2060 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, 00:24
14
18
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
31 Oct 2015, 11:11
3
4
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, 01:26
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.
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
01 Nov 2015, 07:20
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, 13:14
3
3
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
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.
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, 04:06
1
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, 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.
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, 11:25
1
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".)
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
05 Feb 2017, 20:05
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.
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.
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, 02:33
1
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.
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)
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
15 Feb 2018, 23:06
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
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
28 Feb 2018, 22:33
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
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
28 Mar 2018, 06:34
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
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 reasonAND(have been) provided, which omits have been
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 reasonAND(have been) provided, which omits have been
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
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
07 Sep 2018, 01:54
Carah wrote:
Can someone explain why E is wrong? I don't see any question in E
Thanks in advance!
Its wrong because we need conditional word *if* the sentence says that court qualified a ruling that workers cannot be laid off IF this is necessary and E is missing this
_________________
Push yourself again and again. Don't give an inch until the final buzzer sounds. -Larry Bird Success isn't something that just happens - success is learned, success is practiced and then it is shared. -Sparky Anderson -S
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
09 Sep 2018, 01:04
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?
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
Show Tags
25 Sep 2018, 18:12
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.
gmatclubot
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno
[#permalink]
25 Sep 2018, 18:12
close
74% (01:20) correct 
