pk6969 wrote:
Hello guys! In this question I was hesitant to select A because of the presence of "could" It is generally used in conditional situation or hypothetical. the tense changed in the second half of the sentence with could. Can you please justify the use of could here??
IanStewart AndrewNHello,
pk6969. Note that in the sentence in question, the first half of the explanation/comparison focuses on the tortoise, on something the animal actually does, while the second focuses on a hypothetical situation that does
not actually occur (because the soil is not too soft).
Quote:
Researchers hypothesize that granitic soil is the ideal construction material for the desert tortoise because it is not so hard that it makes burrowing difficult or so soft that it could cause tunnels to collapse.
The usage of
could is wholly appropriate, the action of the tortoise suggested at the end:
so soft that it could cause tunnels to collapse [while the tortoise was burrowing]. Sure, the sentence could be written differently—i.e.
so soft that it causes tunnels to collapse [while the tortoise burrows/is burrowing]—but that is not an option, so we are forced to reconsider whether parallel elements must be one-to-one matches, and the OA tells us which way to lean. In terms of logical predication, I prefer the
could version: I understand that I am being provided a glimpse into a scene that does not occur but could occur under different circumstances.
I hope that helps. Thank you for thinking to ask.
- Andrew