GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 23 Sep 2018, 21:27

Close

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
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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 30 Oct 2011
Posts: 13
Concentration: Operations, Finance
GMAT Date: 08-29-2013
GPA: 3.4
GMAT ToolKit User
A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 05 Apr 2018, 04:35
3
35
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  15% (low)

Question Stats:

74% (00:58) correct 26% (01:02) wrong based on 1372 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

Originally posted by anshul1208 on 28 Oct 2015, 06:54.
Last edited by hazelnut on 05 Apr 2018, 04:35, edited 1 time in total.
Edited the question.
Most Helpful Expert Reply
Manhattan Prep Instructor
User avatar
S
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 1302
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Oct 2015, 01:24
10
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


Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile |
Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Most Helpful Community Reply
Moderator
avatar
V
Joined: 22 Jun 2014
Posts: 1042
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT 1: 540 Q45 V20
GPA: 2.49
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Oct 2015, 12:11
1
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)

"would" is completely wrong in choice "B".

+1 for Kudos :)
_________________

---------------------------------------------------------------
Target - 720-740
http://gmatclub.com/forum/information-on-new-gmat-esr-report-beta-221111.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/list-of-one-year-full-time-mba-programs-222103.html

General Discussion
Retired Moderator
User avatar
S
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1148
Location: India
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.


My posts
http://gmatclub.com/forum/beauty-of-coordinate-geometry-213760.html#p1649924
http://gmatclub.com/forum/calling-all-march-april-gmat-takers-who-want-to-cross-213154.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/possessive-pronouns-200496.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/double-negatives-206717.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/the-greatest-integer-function-223595.html#p1721773
https://gmatclub.com/forum/improve-reading-habit-233410.html#p1802265

Moderator
avatar
V
Joined: 22 Jun 2014
Posts: 1042
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT 1: 540 Q45 V20
GPA: 2.49
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.
_________________

---------------------------------------------------------------
Target - 720-740
http://gmatclub.com/forum/information-on-new-gmat-esr-report-beta-221111.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/list-of-one-year-full-time-mba-programs-222103.html

Manhattan Prep Instructor
User avatar
S
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 1302
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Nov 2015, 14:14
3
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


Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile |
Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 21 Aug 2016
Posts: 276
Location: India
GPA: 3.9
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.
Retired Moderator
User avatar
G
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3112
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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 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".
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 21 Aug 2016
Posts: 276
Location: India
GPA: 3.9
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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 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
Retired Moderator
User avatar
G
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3112
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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 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".)
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 21 Aug 2016
Posts: 276
Location: India
GPA: 3.9
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
User avatar
G
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3112
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Feb 2017, 03:33
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.

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
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 18 Feb 2017
Posts: 81
Location: India
Schools: ISB '20, IIMA , IIMC
GMAT 1: 650 Q45 V30
GPA: 3.35
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
User avatar
S
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 1302
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
Senior Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 276
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
User avatar
S
Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 176
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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

Image

Image

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 07 Sep 2018
Posts: 1
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Sep 2018, 02:38
Can someone explain why E is wrong? I don't see any question in E

Thanks in advance!
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
P
Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 367
Location: Pakistan
Concentration: Strategy, International Business
GPA: 3.76
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Sep 2018, 02:54
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

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 05 Mar 2015
Posts: 49
Location: Azerbaijan
GMAT 1: 530 Q42 V21
GMAT 2: 600 Q42 V31
GMAT 3: 700 Q47 V38
CAT Tests
A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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?
GMAT Club Bot
A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers canno &nbs [#permalink] 09 Sep 2018, 02:04
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.