If Charles had spent half as much time attending his classes as he did

Thank you MentorTutoring (Andrew) for clear explanation

The construction doesn't make sense, "to -verb" isn't modifying as you'd expect. you would never write it this way.

Thank You daagh, Sir. I was just looking for why D can be wrong.

Isn't this a subjunctive usage where the if clause should have were.

"Were" is used in sentences about the present.

The context clue "he would have been a good student" indicates that this sentence is about the past.

Thus, "were" is not called for.

When discussing hypothetical conditions in the past, we use the past perfect "had + participle," which is not exactly the past subjunctive but is essentially the past form of the subjunctive.

Thus, "if Charles had spent" is correct.

But comma+verb-ing modify the action/ clause. IMHO there has to be comma before attending OR it can be "charles spent a lot of time in attending classes".
Please clarify where I am wrong.
Due Regards.

Hello himanshu0077,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, in some cases, present participles ("verb+ing") can actually serve as adverbs even without a comma, if an appropriate preposition can be applied.

For example, "He lost a lot of money (by) gambling."

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Thanks for your explanation.
But my doubt is: What "attending his classes modify".
It appears as if its modifying "time" and the action without comma

Due Regards.

Hello himanshu0077,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, here "attending" modifies the verb phrase "spent his time".

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Keep in mind that the GMAT is actually pretty lenient when it comes to comma usage. You always need a comma if you're connecting two independent clauses with a conjunction, but any other comma "rule" should be taken with a grain of salt.

In some cases, the comma helps to clarify the meaning. For example:

• "Charles spent a lot of the money sitting on his couch." - Without a comma, "sitting" seems to modify the "money" -- money that was apparently sitting on Charles's couch.
  
• "Charles spent a lot of the money, sitting on his couch." - The comma makes it clear that "sitting" should describe the clause, not the money. So now it's clear that Charles spent the money as he was sitting on his couch.

In the pair of examples above, the comma makes a huge difference. But is the comma as crucial in something like, "Charles spent a lot of time attending classes."?

In the first example above, it was reasonable enough to imagine a stack of money piled up on Charles's couch (i.e. "money sitting on his couch"). But can you imagine "time attending classes"? And if so, how does one "spend" this special type of time that can somehow go to class?

That interpretation doesn't make any sense, and the intended meaning (as described earlier in the thread) is perfectly clear and logical.

In other words: unlike in our last pair of examples, the reader doesn't NEED the comma to figure out what's going on, so the comma isn't really necessary.

If you see a comma + verb-ing modifier, there's a pretty good chance that the "-ing" modifies the preceding clause. Could the GMAT come up with some example that breaks this "rule"? Sure -- the GMAT loves to mock our so-called grammar rules, and there are disturbingly few rules that apply universally. Likewise, does the absence of the comma mean that the "-ing" modifies the preceding noun? Not necessarily.

In general, if you see something that seems to break a "rule", but the meaning is perfectly clear and logical, you should be conservative and look for other decision points.

I hope that helps!

Can you also please explain why "to + verb" cannot be used in this case?
When can we and when can we not use this "to+verb" form?

AjiteshArun MartyTargetTestPrep can you please explain why b) is incorrect in detail

Hi NakulDiwakar10,

We can take a meaning call here. First, let's take a somewhat similar example:

1. He earned a lot of money working as a hedge fund manager. ← This means that he earned a lot of money ~during the time he spent working as a hedge fund manager.

2. He earned a lot of money to work as a hedge fund manager. ← Because this to means "in order to", this version tells us that he earned a lot of money so that he could work as a hedge fund manager.

Take another look at options A and B:

A. If Charles had spent half as much time attending his classes...

B. If Charles had spent half as much time to attend his classes...

We don't want to say that Charles spent time so that he could attend his classes. What we actually want to say is ~"if Charles had spent... time performing the action of attending his classes".

Here are a couple of examples that might help:

• "Charles attended class TO learn about physics."

Why did Charles attend class? To learn about physics. That makes sense.

• "Charles spent time TO attend class."

Why did Charles spend time? To attend class?? That doesn't make sense.

In other words, the "to" suggests that Charles spent time in order to attend class, and that doesn't make any sense in this context. An "-ing" modifier is more appropriate in this case, as discussed this post.

That said, if you're trying to memorize some concrete rules governing "to + verb" vs "-ing" modifiers, you're barking up the wrong tree. The GMAT wants you to think about meaning and context -- that's hard work, and I'd be careful not to lean too heavily into "rules" that don't necessarily apply consistently on the GMAT.

I hope that helps a bit!