If the ice of Greenland and Antarctica were to melt, the sea level wou

I will go with 'B'
'A' 'at least 100 feet or more' seems to be redundant - at least 100 feet will suffice.

This is a case of hypothetical/conditional subjunctive. That means "if something were to happen, other thing would happen"
So I need "were"
So I have A and B.

A is wrong because at least 100 feet or more is quite redundant.

B it is.

Hope this helps.
_________________

You're right, I missed out the 'more', the use of which is redundant.

B is correct, as the opening phrase constitues a 'if' clause well (subjunctive - i.e. tsting a condition that is contrary to the truth)

Absolutely!!!

Choice Bis the best......Or more id redundant

OA is B.

This is a tough one- starting the sentence with Were the ice... just does not sound correct and threw me off.

As far as I know, it is usual in GMAT to structure a hypothetical period this way, so get used

I believe this is a conditional sentence with a hidden if clause and a hidden then clause. The if clause is given by the 'were' and since it's in the past tense, the then clause would have to be would/could + base verb

Similar to this:

Had I known it I would have done something about it.

Meaning
If I had known it I would have done something about it.

If the ice of Greenland and Antarctica were to melt, the sea level would rise at least 100 feet or more.
A. ....

B. Were the ice of Greenland and Antarctica to melt, the sea level would rise at least 100 feet.

C. Was the ice of Greenland and Antarctica to melt, the sea level woudl rise at least 100 feet or more.

D. If the ice of Greenland and Antarctica was melting, the sea level would rise at least 100 feet.

E. Should the ice of Greenland and Antarctica melt, the sea level would rise at least 100 feet or more.

If the ice of Greenland and Antarctica were to melt, the sea level would rise at least 100 feet or more. A. If the ice of Greenland and Antarctica were to melt, the sea level would rise at least 100 feet or more.

Can someone tell me if the last option did not have the redundant part, would that be a better construction than the official answer since as per my learning, "Should" is also correct.

HI Experts can you please explain why B is correct, though I get the atleast 100 or more concept but what I am not able to get my head around this SUBJUNCTIVE usage on GMAT questions. I am getting most of such answers wrong.

Thanks in advance
AjiteshArun , egmat, GMATNinja, carcass, generis

At least 100 feet or more - redundant. Rules out A, C, and E
Were... would - correct structure. Rules out D.

Hence, B is correct.
_________________

Hello Experts can you please help me with the question. My only point of confusion is option B and D. If possible could you please explain why the usage of were is correct in option B ?

AjiteshArun , egmat, GMATNinja, carcass, generis

Hi yashmatai,

The author believes that (all) the ice of Greenland and Antarctica is not actually going to melt (about that "all": it seems that the author is talking about either all the ice or a significant amount of the ice there, as 100+ feet is a lot). In this sentence, the author is exploring a (hypothetical) situation in which all the ice in Greenland and Antarctica melted. In such (hypothetical) cases, if we choose to use a be form (the be forms are be, is, am, are, was, were, been, and being), we are restricted to were, even if the subject is singular. This is something that we must remember, as the exam does seem to test this concept.

1. If the ice melts, something will happen. ← The author thinks that it is possible for the ice to melt.

2. If the ice were to melt, something would happen. ← The author does not think that it is possible to the ice to melt.
_________________

Hello Everyone,

could someone please explain me why D is not correct? I was down to either B or D. But as the ice is singular the use of "were" seemed weird to me. I understand the hypothetical approach of the sentence but why can't D be correct?

Thanks

We can narrow down our options immediately to options A and B. Option A has redundancy in its construction. Our answer is B.

This is a theoretical sentence and hence of type 3 conditional. We need the subjunctive form “were” in the if clause and “would” in the “then” clause.

Eliminate C, D and E on that basis.

A. If the ice of Greenland and Antarctica were to melt, the sea level would rise at least 100 feet or more. — redundancy. “Atleast” and “or more” convey the same thing. Eliminate.

B. Were the ice of Greenland and Antarctica to melt, the sea level would rise at least 100 feet. — Correct choice.

Posted from my mobile device

Hi souvik101990,

Can you please explain the rules around the use of "were" as a hypothetical/conditional subjunctive. Does it always have to be followed by would+verb or would have + verb? Also, how is this different from a normal if then construction where "were" is used?