Last visit was: 27 Apr 2026, 22:34 It is currently 27 Apr 2026, 22:34
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
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
User avatar
farukqmul
User avatar
Joined: 15 Apr 2012
Last visit: 09 May 2018
Posts: 76
Own Kudos:
313
Given Kudos: 134
Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 460 Q38 V17
GPA: 3.56
GMAT 1: 460 Q38 V17
Posts: 76
Kudos: 313
Sentence Explanation 13 Jul 2012, 11:13
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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?
User avatar
KapTeacherEli
User avatar
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Last visit: 03 Oct 2013
Posts: 610
Own Kudos:
685
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2
Location: Cambridge, MA
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 610
Kudos: 685
 [1]
Sentence Explanation 13 Jul 2012, 11:24
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
farukqmul
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?
Show more
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?
User avatar
farukqmul
User avatar
Joined: 15 Apr 2012
Last visit: 09 May 2018
Posts: 76
Own Kudos:
313
Given Kudos: 134
Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 460 Q38 V17
GPA: 3.56
GMAT 1: 460 Q38 V17
Posts: 76
Kudos: 313
Sentence Explanation 13 Jul 2012, 13:24
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KapTeacherEli
farukqmul
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?
Show more

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..:)
User avatar
KapTeacherEli
User avatar
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Last visit: 03 Oct 2013
Posts: 610
Own Kudos:
685
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2
Location: Cambridge, MA
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 610
Kudos: 685
 [1]
Sentence Explanation 13 Jul 2012, 21:47
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
farukqmul
KapTeacherEli
farukqmul
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..:)
Show more
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!