I too seem to notice these out-of-the-ordinary constructions in the questions deemed “lower difficulty level.” At first, I thought maybe they could be slip-ups / unintentional mistakes.
But then I remembered the oft-quoted figure: the test creators spend thousands of dollars creating each question.
Do you think it is possible that GMAC puts these slightly “different” types of constructions in the sentence to try to distract the test taker from the easier issues that are present in the answers?
Most English language training schools and many treatises break down the available conditional structures into only a few “types.” However, as is the case with almost every other topic in Grammar, controversy exists regarding the appropriateness of the limited types. (Only read the following if you want to geek out on Grammar:
https://clok.uclan.ac.uk/1531/1/elt.ccp101.full_1531.pdfWhen I first read the sentence, I understood the meaning as follows: since the likeliness of this measure being passed doesn’t seem particularly high given the context of the sentence, using “would” instead of “will” effectively suggests the highly unlikely outcome of this system being passed.
It was only after answering the question that I realized the conditional structure didn’t quite fit into the general types. It was then off to google to research the structure used in the correct answer.
I suppose the answer to whether any grammatical construction is “correct”, independent of provided answer choices, is always “it depends.” (with the exception of stricter concepts such as Parallelism and Subject-Verb/Pronoun Agreement)
I can’t believe that the test creators would spend so much effort constructing the sentences and not put thought into each word that is placed in the sentence.
To end this long-winded discussion, I’ll summarize the approach I take:
(1)learn the “general guidelines” from a trusted source, such as the
Manhattan Prep’s All the Verbal workbook or
EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana
(2)After drilling the basic guidelines repetitively until they become second nature, then be prepared to be flexible in your approach to analyzing the decision points in any given sentence correction problem.
Another “controversial” area that comes to mind is the “Heating-oil” question and the issue regarding Ellipsis and whether one must repeat the Helping Verb in all instances of tense-change.
https://gmatclub.com/forum/heating-oil- ... ml#p603196EducationAisle
Hoozan
EducationAisle the "if" part has a simple present tense verb "show" but the later part has a "would". But doesn't "would" appear (in conditional) when we use simple past?
Agree @Hoozan; not the most
classical conditional statement that one would expect to see. In fact, more than the underlined part, there may be a debate whether the non-underlines portion should have used
will instead of
would.
Posted from my mobile device