If his longevity claim would be confirmed Carmelo Flores Laura

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION




• Notes
This question tests inverted conditionals (and hypotheticals).

Your biggest two clues come from
(1) the presence of a conditional framework in option A that should lead you to recognize
(2) the presence of a condition (confirmation of longevity claim) and a consequence (longest lifespan in human history).

Inverted conditionals are real things that exist on the GMAT.

I give examples of two such official questions below.
A few more exist that I cannot remember off the top of my head.
(One in particular is very similar to this question except that the official does not contain the "should" option.)

The meaning of the sentence is pretty straightforward.
If a man's claim that he is extremely old were confirmed, he would possess the longest lifespan in recorded human history.

This sentence is a Type 2 conditional. Type 2 conditionals
→ are used to describe unreal situations—a hypothetical condition and its probable result
→ If THIS thing were to happen, then THAT thing would happen
→ that is, the pattern for Type 2 conditionals that involve the verb TO BE is
IF WERE ... THEN WOULD

• Split #1 - eliminate sentences that make no sense

The phrase "longevity's claim" in option B is insensible.
Long life (longevity) is itself making an assertion? No. Not possible. Wrong. Ciao.

Option D is babble. Look:
That his claim was confirmed, Señor Laura would possess the longest lifespan in recorded human history.
-- That his claim was confirmed is not any kind of IF statement, and we need an IF statement.
-- The that-clause is not a dependent clause, is not a modifier, and just flat is not connected to the "results" clause

Eliminate options B and D

• Split #2: the correct verbs in a straightforward conditional

Option A has a more familiar structure than do options C and E.
Option A also uses the wrong verbs for a Type 2 conditional.
Option A is incorrect: If X would be confirmed, Y would have the longest lifespan ever.[/i]
-- On the GMAT, the words would and should never belong in the condition part (the IF part) of the sentence.
-- Speakers of British English, be careful.
The structure If X would/should will look normal to you.
On the GMAT and in SAE, that construction is wrong.
Eliminate A

• Split #3: inversion and IF deletion

You have seen inverted subjects and verbs before.
These inverted conditionals are only slightly different, though I grant you that the verb "have" is positively wicked.
In options B through E, subjects and verbs are inverted and the word IF has been deleted.

Reverse that process.
Change options C and E back into if-then statements:
(1) put the helping and main verbs back together (into one verb phrase)
(2) replace HAD or WERE with IF

C) Had his longevity claim been confirmed
→ → group the verbs: had been confirmed is the verb phrase, which goes in the standard position after the subject.
→ → Result: IF his longevity claim had been confirmed, he would have the longest lifespan in recorded history.

If THIS thing had happened, then THAT thing would have happened.
(but neither of those things really happened) OR
that thing would have been happening.

This is a Type 3 conditional (IF past perfect, THEN perfect conditional).
Perfect continuous = would + have+ PAST PARTICIPLE [verbED]
That wording doesn't work for this idea. The highlighted past participle is missing.

-- If his longevity claim had been confirmed [in the unreal past], then [in the unreal past] he would have HAD the longest lifespan in recorded history.
-- This one is really hard. Type 3's are pretty rare on the GMAT.

Eliminate C.

By POE, option E is the answer.
Or not? Check. If you can't find anything wrong, choose E.

E) Were his longevity claim confirmed
→ → group the verbs: were confirmed
→ → replace the original were with IF: If his longevity claim were confirmed
Bingo.
If his longevity claim were confirmed, then he would have [possess] the longest lifespan in recorded history.
IF simple past, THEN perfect conditional (WOULD + past participle [verbED])

The answer is E

• OVERVIEW

The subjunctive is used in the U.S. more often than people realize.
We use the subjunctive for hypotheticals that involve the TO BE verb.
→ More specifically, we say If he were, If I were, If she were, etc.
Finally, inverted conditionals are fairly common in formal writing.

Memorize this part, or start reading a lot:
Exactly three words can stand in for IF in an inverted conditional, and GMAT doesn't test the third one (as far as I recall).
We can invert conditionals with the words had, were, and should.

Had I known about the concert, I would have bought tickets.
If I had known about the concert, I would have bought tickets.

Were I president, I would wear a mask.
If I were president, I would wear a mask.

Should he be elected again, I will become an ex-pat. ← I don't recall having seen this form in any official GMAT questions
If he is elected again, I will become an ex-pat.
This kind of should does not connote obligation.
I would not worry about this "should." Let it go.

Were it healthy to eat chocolate truffles frequently, I would eat chocolate truffles a few times a day.
(But it's not healthy to eat chocolate truffles frequently, and I don't eat chocolate truffles a few times a day.)

The three words that can replace IF must be used in certain ways.
HAD is used for past conditionals. (Had I known you were sad, I would have called you.)
SHOULD is used for future conditionals. (Should you need assistance, push the flight attendant button.)
WERE is used to talk about an imaginary or improbable future. (Were he awake, we would hear him rummaging around.)

You will almost certainly not see the inverted "should" structure.

But you might face a inverted conditional that begins with HAD or WERE.

SPOILER alert. Beneath the spoilers are links to official questions whose answers will be very easy to figure out with this material fresh in mind.

In this official question the inverted hypothetical {"were it") is the correct answer. HERE.

In this official question, were it not is in the non-underlined portion of the sentence. HERE.

• TAKEAWAYS
-- only were, had, and should can stand in for IF in inverted conditionals
-- I do not recall an official question that used the "should" construction
-- you should know how were and had work in inverted conditionals

COMMENTS

sauravleo123 , abcdddddd , SameerM38 , and rahat16 , welcome to SC Butler.

Good to see everyone, as always.

I am very glad to see that people posted without being too worried.
I guarantee you that an aspirant (probably many aspirants) will read your post and feel relieved to see familiar (albeit incorrect) reasoning.

sauravleo123 , especially nice work before the OA was revealed!
You did exactly the right thing.
You eliminated the four worst answers and accepted the fifth because you were sure that errors in the others existed—and not sure that option E was wrong.
Yep.

Our job is eliminate the four worst answers, not to go looking for the best answer.
Most of the explanations here try to do the job.

I am very glad to see these answers.
Almost all of the time, in order to earn kudos, you have to explain your answer well enough that a person could replicate your work.
Kudos go to those who explained, even if the final result was not the correct option.
We learn just as much from mistakes as we do from slam dunks.