In a recent press release, a group of California meteorologists declar

In a recent press release, a group of California meteorologists declared that the unseasonably warm temperatures and dry conditions may be an early signal of the possibility of dangerous fire conditions lasting longer than usual this year.

A. be an early signal of the possibility of dangerous fire conditions lasting longer than usual
B. signal the possibility of dangerous fire conditions lasting longer than they usually do
C. be early signals that dangerous fire conditions could last longer than they usually do
D. signal that there is the possibility of dangerous fire conditions lasting longer than usual
E. be early signals that dangerous fire conditions will last longer than usual​

Usage of may and possibility is redundant, so A , B & D are out

C. be early signals that dangerous fire conditions could last longer than they usually do : what is being compared? signals or conditions
E. be early signals that dangerous fire conditions will last longer than usual​ - correct

Imo E
We need signals because because it refers to warm temperatures and dry conditions .
C comes closer but is wordy .

the first split is signal and signals
signals refer to warm and dry condition so plural
the second split is in C they make some confusion

so E is the best

In C

a group of California meteorologists declared that the unseasonably warm temperatures and dry conditions may be early signals that dangerous fire conditions could last longer than they usually do this year changes the intended meaning IMO.

E fits the best.

Hiii, Can you post the official solution of the question by veritas prep

USAGE IF POSSIBILITY AND MAY IN SAME SENTENCE IS REDUNDANT
DECLARED indicates subjunctive mode therefore that and be should be used
when same thing is compared one should not repeat the subject (they) after than
ans E

chetan2u , AjiteshArun , GMATNinja , VeritasKarishma

How can there be no proper antecedent of THEY in option C?? Let us for a moment consider that THEY refers beck to SIGNALS. Then the sentence will be:

be early signals that dangerous fire conditions could last longer than they(SIGNALS) usually do. Wouldn't such a construction be absurd??

I chose option C over E because option E says "will last longer than usual" while option C says "could last longer than". The latter implies a possibility not surety.

(C) is incorrect because "this year" seems to modify the closest verb - "do".

"...they usually do this year."

This makes no sense. Something like: "... they usually do every year" makes sense.

Hi VeritasKarishma

Just have a small doubt
if option C & E were same in all respects except for could & will respectively then will both of them be correct?

Thanks in advance!

I used the technique which gave the result within 3/4 secs.
"may be" and "possibility" are redundant . here, "may " is not underlined . so we have to eliminate "possibility" .
so, A, B, D are ruled out.

"In a recent press release" indicates the outcome is not in past (so no "could "; eliminate C ) , rather it will be in future.( correct answer is E )

In a recent press release, a group of California meteorologists declared that the unseasonably warm temperatures and dry conditions may be early signals that dangerous fire conditions will last longer than usual​ this year.

daagh and GMATNinja. Please help.

I don't think tense is the reason for eliminating "could". When speaking of future in past (declared), we do use "would" i.e. hypothetical situation.

However in this case, the probability, represented by "may", is not hypothetical. What is hypothetical is the event. But we are talking of the probability now which isn't hypothetical and hence the "will"

IanStewart AndrewN daagh -- please correct me if wrong.

Yes, ravigupta2912, meaning is what guides our hand on this one, and the GMAT™ likes to treat signals, signs, and predictions as definitive, as though the sentence were conveying what someone else said, rather than exploring the hypothetical within what was said. Will is, in fact, more appropriate in such a context.

Thank you for thinking to ask me about this one.

- Andrew

I still think that option E is not perfect :

E. be early signals that dangerous fire conditions will last longer than usual​

If a sentence in future tense was quoted in the past ("declared"), it would be legitimate to use "would" instead of "will", given the fact that quoted sentence in future tense is not a universal truth.


VeritasKarishma

abhishekmayank:

Option (E) is fine.

When an account of the proceedings of an intergovernmental body is followed by the conclusions or recommendations put forward by the body, the proceedings are summarized in indirect speech (past tense), but the conclusions or recommendations are normally written in the present tense.

Hence we use "meteorologists declared" in the past,
but "... may be early signals ... that ... will last longer..." in present/future as must have been declared.

These are details that the test maker knows and sticks to but the test taker may not be required to know. Hence, you are not tested on it (they are not decision points). You need to focus on the decision points and whether that error correction makes sense.

Thanks for your reply !!!

We are talking about a possibility so is it correct to use a definite "will" for it over "would or "could" even if are talking in the present tense?