Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 22:33 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 22:33
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3 
User avatar
MartyTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Last visit: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 3,476
Own Kudos:
5,579
 [3]
Given Kudos: 1,430
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 3,476
Kudos: 5,579
 [3]
It has often been assumed that if governments limit fishing, the numbe 07 Apr 2022, 20:23
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VKat
Hello team,

I got the answer but still have one query.
As first independent clause is in present tense, then is it not illogical to have second independent clause with past tense ?

Specially in this case in which both first and second clause are talking about same stuff.
Show more
Hi Vkat.

I believe this is the part of the correct version you're talking about:

such a recovery 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.

So, here's why it works.

"Might come about" in the independent clause is in the present conditional, which is used for describing hypothetical situations in the present or future.

Then "were to order" in the "if" clause is not in the past tense. Rather, it is in what is often termed the "past subjunctive" form, which form is not used for describing past situations. Rather, the past subjunctive is used for describing hypothetical situations in the present or future.

So, we can see that, actually, it does make sense to use the present conditional "might come about" in an independent clause with the past subjunctive "were to order" in an "if" clause since both verb forms are used in in describing a hypothetical situations in the present or future.

Indeed, in this case, the sentence is describing what "might come about" in the future in a hypothetical situation in which "governments were to order the removal of the dams that limit the water-flow required by spawning fish."
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
3,579
 [2]
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
 [2]
It has often been assumed that if governments limit fishing, the numbe 08 Apr 2022, 00:34
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VKat

I got the answer but still have one query.
As first independent clause is in present tense, then is it not illogical to have second independent clause with past tense ?
Show more
Hi VKat, it is important to note that parallelism does not mean that the entire sentence should be in the same tense.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana makes a note of this important point. Have attached the corresponding section of the book, for your reference.
Attachments

Parallelism and Tenses.pdf [446.19 KiB]
Downloaded 76 times

User avatar
ExpertsGlobal5
User avatar
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,193
Own Kudos:
4,760
 [1]
Given Kudos: 43
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,193
Kudos: 4,760
 [1]
It has often been assumed that if governments limit fishing, the numbe 08 Apr 2022, 04:36
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VKat
Hello team,

I got the answer but still have one query.
As first independent clause is in present tense, then is it not illogical to have second independent clause with past tense ?

Specially in this case in which both first and second clause are talking about same stuff.
Show more

Hello VKat,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, parallelism between verbs does not require the verbs to be in the same tense; verbs in the same sentence, even parallel ones, can be of different tenses if they refer to events taking place in different time periods.

For example, "I will go to Japan this year, just as I went last year."

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
User avatar
TalonShade
User avatar
Joined: 21 Apr 2021
Last visit: 29 Dec 2022
Posts: 31
Own Kudos:
3
Given Kudos: 26
Location: India
Schools: IESE '25 (A)
GRE 1: Q165 V163
GPA: 2.24
Schools: IESE '25 (A)
GRE 1: Q165 V163
Posts: 31
Kudos: 3
It has often been assumed that if governments limit fishing, the numbe 19 Apr 2022, 10:40
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I was torn between A and D but to me 'can' brought in some level of certainty of the recovery as compared to 'might'. I was assuming since an argument was being made, it better aligned with the meaning of the sentence.
User avatar
gmatimothy
User avatar
Joined: 18 Apr 2022
Last visit: 19 Dec 2022
Posts: 111
Own Kudos:
9
Given Kudos: 704
Location: United States
Posts: 111
Kudos: 9
It has often been assumed that if governments limit fishing, the numbe 08 Jun 2022, 10:38
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
EBITDA
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.

Let's get technical with the grammar rules here.

(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 governments were to order ... recovery can

NO! recovery would/might or another hypothetical verb should follow

(B) would come about much more readily if governments order the removal of the dams that limit the water-flow that spawning fish requires.

If governments order ... recovery would

The 2nd part should have present or future tense (recover is / will)

(C) came about much more readily if governments would order the removal of the dams that limit the water-flow required by spawning fish.

WRONG. Never have "would" in an "if" clause

(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.

If governments were to order ... recovery might

The only answer choice that makes sense

(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.

If governments ordered ... recovery would have

The first part has to be past perfect for the 2nd part to have "would have" clause. WRONG

Show more
avatar
finaliguess
avatar
Joined: 11 Jul 2022
Last visit: 15 Dec 2022
Posts: 5
Given Kudos: 10
Posts: 5
Kudos: 0
It has often been assumed that if governments limit fishing, the numbe 23 Jul 2022, 07:00
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Can experts please explain why each of the wrong answers are wrong? found it hard to spot mistakes under 2 minutes
User avatar
RonTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 19 Jul 2022
Last visit: 07 Nov 2022
Posts: 430
Own Kudos:
537
 [8]
Given Kudos: 1
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 430
Kudos: 537
 [8]
It has often been assumed that if governments limit fishing, the numbe 23 Jul 2022, 11:01
7
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
finaliguess
Can experts please explain why each of the wrong answers are wrong?
Show more



Breaking it down by specific splits:



Verbs:

The underlined part of the sentence makes a conditional ("IF") statement about something that's still in the future. There are two different pairs of tenses that can work for this statement; they differ in their implications about probability.

If the writer views this cause + effect as reasonably likely, then she/he should use ordinary, non-subjunctive verbs:
Such a recovery WILL/CAN/MAY come about much more readily if governments ORDER the removal of the dams that limit the xxxxx

If the writer views this cause + effect as unlikely or impossible, then she/he should use subjunctive verbs (which are also used for hypotheticals that contradict actual reality in present or past timeframes):
Such a recovery WOULD/COULD/MIGHT come about much more readily if governments ORDERED / WERE TO ORDER the removal of the dams that limit the xxxxx

Choices A and B each combine one verb from the first pair with one verb from the second. That's not allowed; either both verbs should be subjunctive or neither should be.

Choices C and E have a different, probably more obvious, verb issue: The first verb ("came" in C, "would have come" in E) indicates a PAST timeframe! That's nonsense here, as the sentence is about the consequences of an action that governments might take going forward.

These considerations, together, solve the problem.


Subject-Verb Disagreement:

Choice B ends with "spawning fish requires".

Fish can be either a singular noun or a plural noun. In this context it should definitely be plural, because it's referring to all of the fish (plural) that need a certain amount of water flow in order to spawn.
(You don't need to know what "spawn" means to figure this out, by the way. All you need to know is that spawning is a biological function that these fish can only do with a certain amount of water flow; you can figure that much out just from the context here.)

You can also identify "fish" here as plural by realizing that the singular interpretation is nonsense.
(If singular fish refers to one aquatic animal, then it needs to be a/the fish. If it's just singular fish without an article in front, that would mean the meat of that animal, served as food! e.g., People in coastal areas often eat fish multiple times per week. That meaning clearly doesn't work here.)

The plural noun fish disagrees with the singular verb requires, so choice B is also wrong for that reason.
User avatar
Raman109
User avatar
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Last visit: 28 Jul 2025
Posts: 805
Own Kudos:
170
Given Kudos: 33
Posts: 805
Kudos: 170
It has often been assumed that if governments limit fishing, the numbe 10 Nov 2023, 09:47
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.

Option Elimination - The question is pretty straightforward once we understand the conditionals. Moreover, it's always good to understand from the perspective of meaning, and the GMAT is brilliant at creating questions that can deceive us if we are not cautious :).

Brief on conditionals -

Zero Conditional: This conditional is used to express general truths or facts. It follows the pattern "If + present tense, present tense." It expresses a cause-effect relationship that is always true. Example: "If you heat ice, it melts."
Meaning: This sentence states a general truth that whenever ice is heated, it always melts. Isn't it common sense :)

First Conditional: This conditional expresses a possible future condition and its likely result. It follows the pattern "If + present tense, future tense (will + base form of the verb)." It expresses a cause-effect relationship that is likely to happen. Example: "If it rains tomorrow, we will stay indoors."
Meaning: This sentence expresses a possible future condition (rain) and the likely result (staying indoors) if that condition is fulfilled.

Second Conditional: This conditional expresses an unreal or unlikely condition and its hypothetical result. It follows the pattern "If + past simple, would + base form of the verb." It expresses a cause-effect relationship that is unlikely to happen or is contrary to reality. Example: "If I won the lottery, I would buy a house."
Meaning: This sentence presents an unreal or unlikely condition (winning the lottery) and the hypothetical result (buying a house) associated with that condition.

Third Conditional: This conditional expresses a past unreal condition and its hypothetical result. It follows the pattern "If + past perfect, would have + past participle." It expresses a cause-effect relationship that is contrary to reality in the past. Example: "If she had studied harder, she would have passed the exam."
Meaning: This sentence presents a past unreal condition (not studying harder) and the hypothetical result (not passing the exam) associated with that condition.

(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. - violates 2nd conditional.

(B) would come about much more readily if governments order the removal of the dams that limit the water-flow that spawning fish requires. - worst of the lot. Mixes 2nd and zero conditional. Moreover, as RonTargetTestPrep pointed out, "had fish here been singular, it would have required an article "a' - general fish or "the" for specific fish." Without articles, it is plural here. Thus, the singular verb "requires" is wrong.

(C) came about much more readily if governments would order the removal of the dams that limit the water-flow required by spawning fish. - reverses the order of 2nd conditional.

(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. - ok. 2nd conditional.

(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. - mixes 2nd and 3rd conditionals.
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,836
Own Kudos:
986
Posts: 18,836
Kudos: 986
It has often been assumed that if governments limit fishing, the numbe 13 Apr 2025, 09:16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
   1   2   3 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts