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

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

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 [noun #1][noun #2], 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 #1's](noun #2's][noun #3] = 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

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.

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

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

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.

ERROR ANALYSIS -

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

ANSWER CHOICE ANALYSIS -

A) CORRECT

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.