Some economic experts argue that if government would not have interven

For forum members, aspirants, and non-experts:
All correct answers that contain good explanations will be awarded ONE KUDOS.

Exceptional answers may be "bumped" to Best Community Reply.

Kudos will be awarded after the OE is posted by 6pm PDT Sunday, Oct 18.

Some economic experts argue that if government would not have intervened in the housing market, the economic crisis would have been avoided.


A) if government would not have intervened in the housing mar¬ket, the economic crisis would have been avoided.
Wrong The main argument is that the economic crisis would have been avoided. So, that part should follow “that”.

B) the economic crisis would have been avoided if government would not have intervened in the housing market.
Correct Corrects the point made above.

C) if government had not intervened in the housing market, the economic crisis could have been avoided.
Wrong The problem is between “could” and “would”. If the experts are confident about the fact that the crisis was solely the result of the government’s intervention, then using “would” makes more sense. I went with this hypothesis that the experts believed that government was the only responsible party, as the question goes with “would”.

D) the economic crisis could be avoided if government did not inter¬vene in the housing market.
Wrong “Be” shows that the crisis can still be avoided, which does not make sense.

E) the economic crisis would have been avoided if government had failed to intervene in the housing market.
Wrong The use of “failed” shows that the government tried and could not succeed in intervening in the market, which does not seem to be the case here.


Thank you.

This question simply confuses you with all the "would have been", "could have been", "could be", "would not", "did not". A good one!

Lets talk about the sentence and what it wants to convey. Its a discussion of an event from the past, and economic experts are imagining what would happen if a one factor, "government intervention", changed.

We need to be clear about a couple of things -

1) Its an incident from the past. use of "had" is fine. The government "had" intervened".
2) In such sentences, the changed outcome, which in this case is "avoiding economic crisis", needs to have some form of "will". Can or Could, should not be used when you are predicting a different outcome.

With these two things in mind lets have a look at the options.

A) if government would not have intervened in the housing market, the economic crisis would have been avoided. - Use of "would not have" is incorrect. Had the government not intervened is a better way to say it. Eliminate

B) the economic crisis would have been avoided if government would not have intervened in the housing market. - Same issue as Option A, use of "would not have" is not correct. Eliminate

C) if government had not intervened in the housing market, the economic crisis could have been avoided. - Use of had is correct, but for prediction of the outcome a form of "will" would be better. In this option use of " could have been" not correct. Eliminate

D) the economic crisis could be avoided if government did not intervene in the housing market. - Again Could be is not correct for predicting an outcome. I am not super sure if "Did not" is correct or not. Since we have at least one mistake, we know its not the correct option. Eliminate

E) the economic crisis would have been avoided if government had failed to intervene in the housing market. - The use of "would have been" for outcome is correct, "if the government had" correctly implies that this is an event which was completed in the past. Keep

IMO Answer E

My answer is (C). It took me 30 seconds.

My interpretation is that some experts argue, in a subjective mood (the verb form used to explore a hypothetical situation), that the current economic crisis would have been averted had the government not intervened. The reality is: the government intervened, an unwise move that resulted in the current crisis.

With that, we can eliminated A, B and D because they do not use the right verb tense.

Between (C) and (E), I took issue with "had failed to" in (E) since it has the implication that such intervention is desirable.

Some economic experts argue that if government would not have intervened in the housing market, the economic crisis would have been avoided.

#1 - the double "would" - according to MGMAT, helping verbs "should", "would" should never go in the 'if' part of the sentence

A) if government would not have intervened in the housing market, the economic crisis would have been avoided.

B) the economic crisis would have been avoided if government would not have intervened in the housing market.

#2 - grammatically correct, but a change of meaning from the original hypothetical statement

D) the economic crisis could be avoided if government did not intervene in the housing market.

#3 - reshuffle and simplify... eliminate based on style? 'could' leaves a chance, 'would' makes it more likely and as the original uses 'would' as an outcome, I think the correct is E

C) if government had not intervened in the housing market, the economic crisis could have been avoided. --> if government had not intervened, the crisis could have been avoided

E) the economic crisis would have been avoided if government had failed to intervene in the housing market. --> if government had failed to intervene, the crisis would have been avoided

Correct answer: E

IMO E

This question is based on "IF...Then..." usage.
The concept behind such questions is as follows:

IF - ,then -
If + Present - then + simple present (fact/habit)
- then + simple future - will... (certainty)
- then + simple future - may... (possibility)
If + Past - then + simple past (fact/habit)
- then + would + verb (uncertainty/unlikely event)
If + past perfect - then + would have + verb (event not occurred)

"Then" can be omitted.

Only option E shows the correct usage of tenses in If..Then.. statements.

Tough one as it was difficult to decide between E and C.

Hidden fact: Government has intervened in the housing market.
Economic experts are arguing that if the govt. had not intervened in the housing market, the economic crisis could have been avoided!

Would or Could?
Would have - Imaginary Past--scenarios in which we can say outcome would be certain if they had happened
e.g. If I had got better GMAT score, I would have gone to Harvard.
So if in the past...I had gotten 780 in GMAT , I would have gone to Harvard for sure. Although Harvard don't consider only GMAT score but still. Bad example
or If I had scored 780 in GMAT, I would have been very happy.--> means if in the past I had scored 780 in GMAT, I would definitely be happy.

Could have - Used for Imaginary past to showcase the chances/possibilities that you didn't had in the real world but in your imaginary world you could have.

e.g. If I had more time, I could have solved all the questions in the verbal section.
or If Novak hadn't lost that first set, he could have lifted that cup at Rolland Garros. (Big RAFA fan Btw )
So, in my imaginary world, If Novak hadn't lost that first set, he had better chances of winning the match.

Coming back to the actual question: Are the Economic experts arguing that the economic crisis would have been avoided (certainly)...if Govt hadn't intervened in the market? Or Experts are trying to say that there were good chances that the crisis could have been avoided if govt hadn't intervened in the market? IMO they are talking about the possibility.

A) if government would not have intervened in the housing market, the economic crisis would have been avoided.
would ....would Not good

B) the economic crisis would have been avoided if government would not have intervened in the housing market.
--would ....would Not good besides it's same as A just X and Y are reversed.

C) if government had not intervened in the housing market, the economic crisis could have been avoided.
--Please see the explanation above

D) the economic crisis could be avoided if government did not intervene in the housing market.
--Although the if+simple past+would/could be is the correct structure, but the sentence is missing with the essence of hypothetical scenario. IMO. C is structured in the better way.

E) the economic crisis would have been avoided if government had failed to intervene in the housing market.
--Please see the explanation above

C, IMO.

Some economic experts argue that if government would not have intervened in the housing market, the economic crisis would have been avoided.

According to E-gmat

In If then clause --- if would not have is always wrong
Correct way : If simple present then Present or Future tense
If past then\would
If had then would have or could have.
So eliminate All except D AND E


A) if government would not have intervened in the housing mar¬ket, the economic crisis would have been avoided.

B) the economic crisis would have been avoided if government would not have intervened in the housing market.

C) if government had not intervened in the housing market, the economic crisis could have been avoided.
Already the intervention happened. Hypothetically if it intervention is avoided crisis could have been avoided. ----- Makes perfect sense
D) the economic crisis could be avoided if government did not inter¬vene in the housing market.

E) the economic crisis would have been avoided if government had failed to intervene in the housing market.
The intention of intervening is not in the control of government anymore - it says that Failing might have occurred due to external factor hence not the intended meaning

This question is simply testing understanding of the 3rd Conditional. This is a hypothetical/imaginary scenario that is in the past.

IMO-C

This question is base on hypothetical conditions
If I had ..then I would/could have
That express what would happen if thing would have been different

In Gmat use of could would after if is questionable


Some economic experts argue that if government would not have intervened in the housing market, the economic crisis would have been avoided.


A) if government would not have intervened in the housing mar¬ket, the economic crisis would have been avoided.
...use of would incorrect
B) the economic crisis would have been avoided if government would not have intervened in the housing market.
....use of would incorrect
C) if government had not intervened in the housing market, the economic crisis could have been avoided.
....correct
D) the economic crisis could be avoided if government did not inter¬vene in the housing market. ...
...use of didn’t is incorrect
E) the economic crisis would have been avoided if government had failed to intervene in the housing market.....it change meaning of the sentence

Posted from my mobile device

This is the Third Conditional : Things that didn’t happen in the past and their imaginary results.
For these of sentence the structure is
If + past perfect , Would/Could + have + past participle.


Options C and E follow the above Structure.
Eliminate Options A, B and D.

When you are down to two options check for the meaning related issues.
Option E suggests that if governments had failed to intervene, this is not same as If governments had not Intervened .
Clearly , the meaning has changed. Here we are talking about the governments non intervention into the project.
Also, how can government fail to intervene in something?? May be the results after intervening could be bitter or It might fail at that project, but government can intervene.
Option E doesn't show the intended meaning of the author.
Option C rectifies this mistake.

Correct Answer : C

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________