The use of ‘should’ (in the conditional sense) is considered wrong on the GMAT. This is typically old-style British usage. This eliminates A, B, and C.

The ‘if’ part of a conditional sentence definitely needs a verb (as it is a dependent clause). Choice D doesn’t contain a verb (the word ‘having’ is not a verb … in fact, -ING form alone (without a preceding helping verb) are not verbs at all. D is wrong for this reason.

E is correct. It also uses the correct subject verb agreement (mastery … has).
_________________

E for me.

A. "should it be that" is wordy/awkward. Also, "students' mastery" and "having" is not //
B. Again, "should it be that" is odd. "students' mastery (singular)" and "have (plural)" is not //
C. Close but "test scores" is not // with "has"
D. "test scores" and "having" is not //
E. "mastery of reading skills" is // with "has". Correct.

E with same reasoning as that of raconteur


[quote="raconteur"]E for me.

A. "should it be that" is wordy/awkward. Also, "students' mastery" and "having" is not //
B. Again, "should it be that" is odd. "students' mastery (singular)" and "have (plural)" is not //
C. Close but "test scores" is not // with "has"
D. "test scores" and "having" is not //
E. "mastery of reading skills" is // with "has". Correct.

E. If S+V(present tense)..., S + would

I think E has problem with "would", it should be "will", because Verb in "if-clause" is "simple present tense"

Do you think so?
_________________

Sorry sondendo but I didn't understand ur question.
The verbal tense here in E seems pretty correct.

should.....if test scores show that their students' mastery of reading skills has

If you choose E, you see the original:

Several educational research groups are denouncing the mayor's proposal of a system by which individual teachers would be given raises or bonuses + E: if test scores show that their students' mastery of reading skills has

I mean, because the orginal NOT-underlined part has "would", so the underlined part has clause if, the verb in if-clause should be "past tense" and vice versa. Do you think so?
_________________

72. Several educational research groups are denouncing the mayor's proposal of a system by which individual teachers would be given raises or bonuses should it be that test scores show their students' mastery of reading skills having improved over a nine-month period.

(A) should it be that test scores show their students' mastery of reading skills having
(B) should it be that test scores show their students' mastery of reading skills have
(C) should test scores showing their students' mastery of reading skills has
(D) if test scores showing their students' mastery of reading skills having
(E) if test scores show that their students' mastery of reading skills has

ron:
actually, whenever a situation is purely HYPOTHETICAL, "would" is better than "will", even if the if-clause is rendered in the present tense.

the original poster has (correctly) asserted that "would" is used if the referenced situation is impossible or contradictory to fact, but it's more general than that: if we're dealing with a situation that is purely hypothetical, or when there is doubt as to whether the situation will come to pass, we use "would", "not "will".

example:
a bill that would mandate paternity testing for all live births is up for voting in the Tennessee state senate.
even though this event is happening in the present, the bill's consequences are still hypothetical; there is doubt as to whether the bill will pass. therefore, the conditional is appropriate. (if the sentence were worded as "will mandate", that would seem to imply that the bill will pass for sure.)

my doubt:
how come the subject of the action "improved over a nine-month period." is mastery. Mastery can't improve. It is reading skills that can be improved?

Can someone please elaborate the solution to this question ? What's wrong with A,B,C ?
In which cases we can use "Should construction" ?

Thanks

This article is worth reading for folks demanding more clarity between conditional if and conditional should.
http://blog.esllibrary.com/2017/07/06/h ... al-should/

Best
-rr

GMATNinja - can you see if you my analysis on this is accurate

Core : Several educational research groups are denouncing the mayor's proposal
Modifier : of-clause, playing the role of prepositional phrase, modifying the object noun : proposal

Modifier :

A system by which individual teachers would be given raises or bonuses should it be that test scores show their students' mastery of reading skills having improved over a nine-month period.



a) Subject : Test scores
b) Verb : show

This is wrong because Test Scores are not technically showing their student's mastery.

Test scores are showing an action [ the action being, THAT their students mastery has improved]



a) Subject : Test scores
b) Verb : show

This is wrong because Test Scores are not technically showing their student's mastery.

Test scores are showing an action [ the action being, THAT their students mastery has improved]



a) Subject : Test scores
b) Verb-ed modifier : showing their students' mastery of reading skills
c) Verb : has

Test scores is plural -- Test scores should be paired with "Have", not "Has"


Test scores are showing THAT their students mastery has improved



a) Subject : Test scores
b) Verb-ing modifier : showing their students' mastery of reading skills
c) Verb : having

Test scores having improved -- sound strange to my ear




a) Subject : Test scores
b) Verb : show
C Object noun : that clause

Test scores show an action (Represented in the THAT clause)

GMATGuruNY - how does one eliminate A and B ?

Can i eliminate A and B because a "THAT" is missing after the verb "Show" in both option A and option B ?

OA: teachers would be given raises if test scores show that their students' mastery has improved
Conveyed meaning:
Raises would be given as the result of an EVENT: that the mastery HAS IMPROVED.

A and B: show their students' mastery
Conveyed meaning:
Raises would be given as the result of MASTERY.
Not the intended meaning.
As discussed above, the intended meaning is that raises would be given as the result of an EVENT: that the mastery HAS IMPROVED.
Eliminate A and B.

Other issues:

Generally, HAVING + VERBed must serve to modify a CLAUSE.
The purpose of this construction is to convey an action completed before the main verb.
HAVING FINISHED his dessert, John LEFT the table.
Here, HAVING FINISHED conveys an action completed before John LEFT the table.

A: skills having improved
The construction here is NOUN + having + VERBed.
The GMAT seems to consider this construction invalid.
As shown above, having + VERBed should serve to modify not a noun but a CLAUSE.
Eliminate A.

B: their students' mastery...have improved
Here, have (plural) does not agree with mastery (singular).
Eliminate B.

When should is used to express a condition, the implication is that the condition is NOT EXPECTED TO HAPPEN.
The train is scheduled to arrive at 6pm.
I will meet you at that time.
Should the train arrive early, please wait for me.
Here, the usage of should implies that the blue portion is not expected to happen.
In other words, the train is not expected to arrive early.

A and B: should it be that test scores show their students' mastery
Here, the usage of should implies that the red portion is not expected to happen -- a distortion of the intended meaning.
Eliminate A and B.
_________________

Hi GMATGuruNY - Thank you for responding. Just very quick follow-ups


In option B - Would you agree from a meaning perspective, both (Test Scores and Mastery - BOTH) can be subjects for "improved over a nine-month period." ?

On my first read of option B - i was not sure what the subject of "improved over a nine-month period."

I then tried to use meaning/logic to determine what would make more sense with "improved over a nine-month period" and too my annoyance -- both seemed technically possible to be subject for "improved over a nine-month period."

Any tips on identifying the subject for "improved over a nine-month period." when from a meaning perspective -- both (Test Scores and Mastery make sense with "improved over a nine-month period."

@GMATGuruNY- 2nd followup


If "Should" indicates a condition which is not expected to happen like in the pink below,

1) Should you leave, I will cry
vs.
2) Should you leave, I would cry

Does the Should you leave have any impact on whether we have to use "Will" or "Would" thereafter OR is the usage of "Will" or "Would" completely independent of the Should you leave ?

GMATGuruNY - 3rd follow-up



I think what you are saying HAVING + VERBed is a very unique construction to convey that the action (described in the VERBed) is done before the main verb (Primarily because of the HAVING)

Hence even this sentence would be incorrect ? Please let me know if my understanding is correct

John LEFT the table, HAVING FINISHED his dessert ==> This would be incorrect because John FINISHED his dessert FIRST before leaving the table

However other Verb+ING construction is fine
John LEFT the table, BLEEDING from his mouth = Here Leaving the table and Bleeding from the mouth are taking place at the same time
OR
John LEFT the table, scaring the cat == Here Leaving the table happens first and then scaring the cat happens.

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.
_________________