EBITDA wrote:
It has often been assumed that if governments limit fishing, the numbers of fish will increase, but in the case of fish such as salmon such a recovery can come about much more readily if governments were to order the removal of the dams that limit the water-flow required by spawning fish.
(A) can come about much more readily if governments were to order the removal of the dams that limit the water-flow required by spawning fish.
(B) would come about much more readily if governments order the removal of the dams that limit the water-flow that spawning fish requires.
(C) came about much more readily if governments would order the removal of the dams that limit the water-flow required by spawning fish.
(D) might come about much more readily if governments were to order the removal of the dams that limit the water-flow required by spawning fish.
(E) would have come about much more readily if governments ordered the removal of the dams that limit the water flow that fish need in order to spawn.
I kind of like this question. if you put your thoughts clearly , this question is a full demonstration
of conditional cases and subjunctive moodComing to the explanation
I will try to solve it by doing POE
OPTION A
can come about much more readily if governments were to order the removal of the dams that limit the water-flow required by spawning fish.if then contruction mentioning a subjunctive mood , however written in opposite manner (( then if form ))
Let me write it in If then form
IF governments were to order the removal of the dams that limit the water-flow required by spawning fish THEN such a recovery can come about much more readilyNow, here is a problem "" If were , Then can"" . we can't take a present tense in the ""then construction"" here ,,if it was could things could have worked.
((((If i were,,,,, then you would construction)))This is why A is wrong.
Lets looks at option B
IF governments ORDER the removal of the dams that limit the water-flow that spawning fish requires. THEN such a recovery WOULD HAVE come about much more readily the error is clearly visible """IF PRESENT ((( ORDER )) TENSE , THEN (((WOULD HAVE )) A CONDITIONAL TENSE
is wrong. conditionals are used with past or past perfect tenses in if then constructions.
Now i will talk abour option E here . If we write it in above if then form the tenses we get are
IF ORDERED (( PAST TENSE )) , THEN WOULD HAVE BEEN (( CONDITIONAL PERFECT))the error is clearly visible here again the conditional perfect is used with past perfect in if then constructions.
Option c can also be ruled out accordingly
If WOULD ORDER,, THEN CAME this is totally nonsensical.
Coming to option d
IF governments were to order the removal of the dams that limit the water-flow required by spawning fish.such a recovery MIGHT come about much more readilyMight is the past tense of may , and can be substituted for would heretherefore we get IF WERE TO ORDER (( HYPOTHETICAL IN IF,,, IN PAST TENSE)), THEN ,,, MIGHT (( substitution for would (( if i were ,,, you would form )) Past tense ))is correct
kudos are appreciated