Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 26 May 2017, 12:02

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Sentence Explanation

Author Message
Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2012
Posts: 93
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 460 Q38 V17
GPA: 3.56
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 134

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2012, 11:13
Had they gone to field without referee, both teams might have the chance to win the match.
if both teams went to field without referee,they would have the chance to win the match.
Are these two sentences convey the same meaning?Can anyone explain?
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 644
Location: Cambridge, MA
Followers: 84

Kudos [?]: 286 [1] , given: 2

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2012, 11:24
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
farukqmul wrote:
Had they gone to field without referee, both teams might have the chance to win the match.
if both teams went to field without referee,they would have the chance to win the match.
Are these two sentences convey the same meaning?Can anyone explain?
Hi faruk,

Both of the sentences are in error. Both us "both" to refer to the teams, and therefore seem to imply that both teams could with the match at the same time. The proper construction would likely involve the word "each," although I don't quite understand the meaning behind this sentence--why does not having a referee affect the teams' chances of winning?
_________________

Eli Meyer
Kaplan Teacher
http://www.kaptest.com/GMAT

Prepare with Kaplan and save $150 on a course! Kaplan Reviews Manager Joined: 15 Apr 2012 Posts: 93 Location: Bangladesh Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship GMAT 1: 460 Q38 V17 GPA: 3.56 Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 134 Re: Sentence Explanation [#permalink] ### Show Tags 13 Jul 2012, 13:24 KapTeacherEli wrote: farukqmul wrote: Had they gone to field without referee, both teams might have the chance to win the match. if both teams went to field without referee,they would have the chance to win the match. Are these two sentences convey the same meaning?Can anyone explain? Hi faruk, Both of the sentences are in error. Both us "both" to refer to the teams, and therefore seem to imply that both teams could with the match at the same time. The proper construction would likely involve the word "each," although I don't quite understand the meaning behind this sentence--why does not having a referee affect the teams' chances of winning? Sorry..I actually don't know the source of the sentences..someone showed me those and I became very confused...I couldn't give him any explanation..as you said, I guess both of them are wrong..by the way..If I write... If each team went to field without referee,who seemed to be biased against the team,it would have the chance to win the match .... Had each team gone to field without referee,who seemed to be biased against the team ,it might have the chance to win the match... Now are they same?am I missing something ? Thanks for help.. Kaplan GMAT Instructor Joined: 25 Aug 2009 Posts: 644 Location: Cambridge, MA Followers: 84 Kudos [?]: 286 [1] , given: 2 Re: Sentence Explanation [#permalink] ### Show Tags 13 Jul 2012, 21:47 1 This post received KUDOS Expert's post farukqmul wrote: KapTeacherEli wrote: farukqmul wrote: Had they gone to field without referee, both teams might have the chance to win the match. if both teams went to field without referee,they would have the chance to win the match. Are these two sentences convey the same meaning?Can anyone explain? Hi faruk, Both of the sentences are in error. Both us "both" to refer to the teams, and therefore seem to imply that both teams could with the match at the same time. The proper construction would likely involve the word "each," although I don't quite understand the meaning behind this sentence--why does not having a referee affect the teams' chances of winning? Sorry..I actually don't know the source of the sentences..someone showed me those and I became very confused...I couldn't give him any explanation..as you said, I guess both of them are wrong..by the way..If I write... If each team went to field without referee,who seemed to be biased against the team,it would have the chance to win the match .... Had each team gone to field without referee,who seemed to be biased against the team ,it might have the chance to win the match... Now are they same?am I missing something ? Thanks for help.. Correct phrasing would probably be "each team would have a chance of winning, if it weren't for the biased referee" or something like that. You also could replace "each" with "either." Whichever way you phrased it, if the referee is biased, you must use the "were/would" tense. This tense, known as the "unreal conditional," is the one to use for counterfactual speculation. Good luck with your studies! _________________ Eli Meyer Kaplan Teacher http://www.kaptest.com/GMAT Prepare with Kaplan and save$150 on a course!

Kaplan Reviews

Re: Sentence Explanation   [#permalink] 13 Jul 2012, 21:47
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Help - SC explanation needed 3 13 Aug 2016, 21:29
Explanation of data sufficiency question 3 26 May 2016, 23:57
1 prime numbers explanation 4 23 Jul 2012, 16:22
1 Explanation Please.... 1 08 Jul 2012, 23:12
Sentence Diagramming for Sentence Correction 1 29 Oct 2011, 04:08
Display posts from previous: Sort by