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

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."

The pronoun "their" is the first thing that jumps out at me. But it correctly refers to "workers" in all five choices, so no luck using the pronoun as a decision point. In fact, I don't see any DEFINITE errors in any of the five choices, so let's start comparing our options:


This looks logical to me. Employers are trying to lay off the workers now, but the workers have (already) been given assurance of their job security (at some time in the past).

Hang on to (A).



The present tense ("are") is a problem here because it suggests that employers are giving the workers assurance of their job security AT THE SAME TIME that the employers are trying to lay off the workers! ("Hey, your job is safe... and you're fired!")

Also, the "would" makes it sound like we have a conditional--as if we are expecting ANOTHER "if" statement (i.e. "workers cannot be laid off IF they are given reason for believing that their jobs would STILL be safe IF ______"). The future tense "will" expresses the intended meaning more clearly -- at some time in the past, the workers were given reason to believe that their jobs will be safe in the future.

Eliminate (B).


Here it sounds like the "having been given reason..." part is just some extra, unrelated information (workers cannot be laid off according to the 1998 ruling... oh and by they way, they have been given reason for believing that their jobs would be safe). The simple conditional structure in (A) makes it clearer that the reason the workers cannot be laid off is because they have been given assurance of their job security.

And again, "would" isn't ideal. Eliminate (C).


In (A) we have, "reason to believe that their jobs will be safe," but here we have "reason to believe their jobs to be safe":

• What do the workers believe in (A)? That their jobs will be safe -- this makes it perfectly clear that the assurance of job safety extends into the future.
• What do the workers believe in (D)? Their jobs to be safe -- here we lose that future tense component.
• So were the workers simply told that their jobs were safe at that moment? (Worker: "Hey, you told me my job was safe!" Employer: "Yes, it was safe back when I told you that... but I never said that it WILL be safe in the future... sorry!")

Also, once again, the simple conditional construction in (A) expresses the intended meaning more clearly than the "having been" construction that we have here. So we have a couple reasons to ditch (D) in favor of (A).


At best, the function of the "given..." part is unclear:

• It makes it sound like the workers cannot be laid off BECAUSE of their reason to believe that their jobs will be safe.
• But that's not right -- it's the 1998 ruling that prohibits workers from being laid off IF they've been giving such assurance.
• Again, the straightforward conditional structure in (A) makes the logical meaning more clear.

Lastly, the "still" makes it sound like something is missing (i.e. "... their jobs will still be safe IF/WHEN _____"), giving us one final vote against (E).

That leaves (A) as the best option!

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of the crucial part of this sentence is that workers cannot be laid off in the event that they have been given reason to believe that their jobs will be safe.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Tenses + Verb Forms

• The present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present.
• The simple present tense is used to indicate actions taking place in the current time frame, indicate habitual actions, state universal truths, and convey information that is permanent in nature.
• The simple future tense is used to refer to actions that will take place in the future.
• For referring to the purpose/intent of an action, the infinitive verb form ("to + base form of verb" - "to + believe" in this sentence) is preferred over the present participle ("verb+ing" - "believing" in this sentence).
• “will” is preferred for referring to events that are certain to happen, and “would” is preferred for referring to events that are hypothetical, meaning the use of “would” alongside verbs that express uncertainty (predict, assume, guess, etc.) is redundant.

A: Correct. This answer choice uses the phrase "if they have been given reason", conveying the intended meaning - that workers cannot be laid off in the event that they have been given reason to believe that their jobs will be safe. Further, Option A correctly uses the present participle verb "have been given" to refer to an action that concluded in the past but continues to affect the present. Additionally, Option A correctly uses the simple future tense verb "will be" to refer to an action that will take place in the future. Option A also uses the infinitive verb form ("to + base form of verb" - "to + believe" in this sentence) to refer to the intent behind the action "have been given reason". Besides, Option A avoids the redundancy seen in Options B and C, as it uses the verb "will".

B: This answer choice incorrectly uses the simple present tense verb "are given" to refer to an action that concluded in the past but continues to affect the present; remember, the present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present and the simple present tense is used to indicate actions taking place in the current time frame, indicate habitual actions, state universal truths, and convey information that is permanent in nature. Further, Option B uses the present participle ("verb+ing" - "believing" in this sentence) to refer to the intent behind the action "are given reason"; remember, for referring to the purpose/intent of an action, the infinitive verb form ("to + base form of verb") is preferred over the present participle ("verb+ing" - "believing" in this sentence). Additionally, Option B redundantly uses the helping verb "would" alongside the verb "believe"; remember, “will” is preferred for referring to events that are certain to happen, and “would” is preferred for referring to events that are hypothetical, meaning the use of “would” alongside verbs that express uncertainty (predict, assume, guess, etc.) is redundant.

C: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "having been given reason"; the construction of this phrase incorrectly implies that workers cannot be laid off, and as a separate action they have already been given reason to believe that their jobs will be safe; the intended meaning is that workers cannot be laid off in the event that they have been given reason to believe that their jobs will be safe. Further, Option C uses the present participle ("verb+ing" - "believing" in this sentence) to refer to the intent behind the action "are given reason"; remember, for referring to the purpose/intent of an action, the infinitive verb form ("to + base form of verb") is preferred over the present participle ("verb+ing" - "believing" in this sentence). Additionally, Option C redundantly uses the helping verb "would" alongside "believing"; remember, “will” is preferred for referring to events that are certain to happen, and “would” is preferred for referring to events that are hypothetical, meaning the use of “would” alongside verbs that express uncertainty (predict, assume, guess, etc.) is redundant.

D: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "having been given reason"; the construction of this phrase incorrectly implies that workers cannot be laid off, and as a separate action they have already been given reason to believe that their jobs will be safe; the intended meaning is that workers cannot be laid off in the event that they have been given reason to believe that their jobs will be safe. Further, Option D incorrectly uses the infinitive verb form ("to + base form of verb" - "to + be" in this sentence) to refer to an action that will take place in the future; remember, the simple future tense is used to refer to actions that will take place in the future.

E: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "given reason to believe"; the construction of this phrase leads to an incoherent meaning; the intended meaning is that workers cannot be laid off in the event that they have been given reason to believe that their jobs will be safe.

Hence, A is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Simple Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



To understand the concept of "Present Perfect Tense" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



To understand the concept of "Infinitive" vs "Present Participle" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

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.

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 can COULD 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".)

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.

https://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)

hello sir
how can we use if+ present perfect?
is there any other forms used in GMAT and please elaborate if there is such

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!

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

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