Had the quantitative skills of Boustrophedon’s CEO been on par with hi

Question

Had the quantitative skills of Boustrophedon’s CEO been on par with his extraordinary intuition in negotiations, he would not have needed such a brilliant expert in finance as his CFO.

(A) Had the quantitative skills of Boustrophedon’s CEO been on par with his extraordinary intuition in negotiations

(B) If the Boustrophedon’s CEO’s quantitative skills equaled his extraordinary negotiation intuition

(C) In the case that the quantitative skills of Boustrophedon’s CEO were comparable to his extraordinary skill of using intuition in negotiations

(D) If Boustrophedon’s CEO’s skills for quantitative material were on par to his extraordinary intuition in negotiations

(E) If the quantitative skills of Boustrophedon’s CEO were a comparable ability for his extraordinary intuition in negotiations

The past perfect tense can be tricky, especially in some of its more sophisticated uses. For a complete discussion, as well as the OE of this particular question, see
Past Perfect on GMAT Sentence Correction

Mike :-)

Show Answer

Official Answer

A

daagh · Accepted Answer

This is a classic conditional 3 type, in which when the past perfect tense such as 'had been' is used in the conditional clause, one has to follow it up with a perfect conditional namely ' would + have ' format in the main clause. Reversely, when the perfect conditional namely 'would have ' is used in the main clause, one has to look forward to the past perfect in the conditional clause. Any other simple past will not work with the 'would have' structure in conditional sentences. 
As per the above template, 
 
 (A) Had the quantitative skills of Boustrophedon’s CEO been on par with his extraordinary intuition in negotiations ---  The past perfect in the conditionals is the perfect foil for the 'would have' in the main clause. -- Correct choice.

(B) If the Boustrophedon’s CEO’s quantitative skills equaled his extraordinary negotiation intuition --  equaled is simple past and does not go with the 'would have'
 
(C) In the case that the quantitative skills of Boustrophedon’s CEO were comparable to his extraordinary skill of using intuition in negotiations---  were comparable is simple past, incompatible with the ' would have' in the main
 
(D) If Boustrophedon’s CEO’s skills for quantitative material were on par to his extraordinary intuition in negotiations -- were on par is incompatible--  same error as in B and C

(E) If the quantitative skills of Boustrophedon’s CEO were a comparable ability for his extraordinary intuition in negotiations --  'were a comparable' is simple past and per se wrong as per the format of conditional 3 type.

Beautiful concept, thanks to Mike

Takdir · Answer

it will be of great help if you post SC qns more frequently as nowadays there many qns on gmatclub which are not gmat like and misguide the students.

KDPathak33 · Answer

This is a sub-600 level question.
Btw, the answer is 'A'

NDND · Answer

Hi KDPathak33 , I think it's a bit more advanced than sub-600

Prashant10692 · Answer

Hello Mike,
Could you please explain it a bit more why B is wrong ans A is correct?
Thanks in advance.

HKD1710 · Answer

Hi Prashant10692 , Sorry not Mike here :D but Here are my 2 cents : A Vs B: Verb Tense Issue in B: The verb used in the if clause here has to be according to main clause, which is NON UNDERLINED. When If clause uses PAST PERFECT (verb - HAD) then main clause has to use WOULD HAVE/COULD HAVE/MIGHT HAVE. choice A correctly uses "HAD". Choice B uses Past tense (verb - equaled) for if clause and that is wrong. It could be correct if main clause had used COULD/WUOLD. Modifier issue in B: In choice A extraordinary (adjective) correctly modifies intution (NOUN), which is modified by "in negotiations" (a prepositional phrase - here as an adjective phrase) so simply noun is modified by two adjectives and that is correct. so meaning wise this modification makes sense. in choice B extraordinary (adjective) incorrectly modifies negotiation and two nouns "negotiations & intution" are placed together. So complete nonsensical meaning because of wrong modification. Hope this helps you

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear Prashant10692 I see that HKD1710 already chimed in, but I will add a few additional thoughts. I'm happy to respond.

First of all, I would call the verb tense in (B) "fishy"--it's not black-and-white incorrect, but it's suspect. That's problem #1. I would disagree with part of what HKD1710 said about " extraordinary negotiation intuition ." First of all, in some context, it's appropriate to have , and it's understood that the first noun plays the role of a modifier. " a fire truck" " he's a baseball guy " " a tree specialist " This structure is very common in casual English conversation, but it's not always inappropriate in a formal academic content. Usually, though, the first noun, the noun in the role of modifier, is a short noun, a common noun. It sounds inherently awkward to have a long four-syllable formal-sounding noun in this role. Tacking on a long adjective in front of it makes it even worse: " extraordinary negotiation intuition ." That's very awkward sounding: that's problem #2. Then, in my mind, the crowning-jewel problem: it sounds sloppy and awkward to have a series of possessives: (noun #2's] = very awkward This is precisely what we have in the structure: " the Boustrophedon’s CEO’s quantitative skills ." Yuck! Very awkward! That's problem #3, perhaps the biggest problem. With all three of those, it's very clear that (B) cannot be the answer. Does all this make sense? Mike

Prashant10692 · Answer

Yes sir.
Thank you so much for such an amazing explanation.

p.s I am really a big ban of your CR stories. The way you connect the CR argument to a normal daily life scenario,by adding a context to it, is really superb.

minalgambhir · Answer

ERROR ANALYSIS -

1) If clause tense - Past perfect , then clause tense - would have been

ANSWER CHOICE ANALYSIS -

A) CORRECT

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Had the quantitative skills of Boustrophedon’s CEO been on par with hi

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

Had the quantitative skills of Boustrophedon’s CEO been on par with hi

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards