GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 26 Jun 2019, 03:21

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

The court held that, for constitutionally discharging any service memb

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

 
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 31 Oct 2018
Posts: 3
The court held that, for constitutionally discharging any service memb  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 26 Dec 2018, 10:47
7
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  85% (hard)

Question Stats:

42% (02:03) correct 58% (02:08) wrong based on 156 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics


The court held that, for constitutionally discharging any service member for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military required to first prove that the service member’s discharge significantly furthered, and was necessary to further, the military’s interests in maintaining morale, unit cohesion, and good order and discipline in the Armed Forces.


A. for constitutionally discharging any service member for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military required to first prove that the service member’s discharge significantly furthered, and was

B. to constitutionally discharge any service member for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military was required to first prove that the service member’s discharge would significantly further, and was

C. in order to constitutionally discharge any service member for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military was required to first prove that the service member’s discharge will significantly further, and will be

D. in order to discharge any service member constitutionally for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military will require to first prove that the service member’s discharge will significantly further, and will be

E. for constitutional discharge of any service member for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military would have required that it prove that the service member’s discharge would significantly further, and was


Can someone explain when to use "would" vs "was"? In many sentences, I feel like I can use "would" to substitute for "was" like in this example below. I know the answer is B but would it be right to say - "the military WOULD BE required to first prove that the service member's discharge would significantly further, and WOULD BE necessary to further.."

Originally posted by abaml on 25 Dec 2018, 13:55.
Last edited by Gladiator59 on 26 Dec 2018, 10:47, edited 2 times in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
D
Status: Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2018
Posts: 364
Location: Egypt
Concentration: Strategy, International Business
GPA: 3.67
WE: Pharmaceuticals (Health Care)
GMAT ToolKit User
The court held that, for constitutionally discharging any service memb  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 29 Dec 2018, 04:09
2
Going through each sentence:

A. for constitutionally discharging any service member for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military required to first prove that the service member’s discharge significantly furthered, and was
problems:
1. verb to be is missing from the passive verb
2. from the meaning, the military should prove first before discharging. To serve this meaning, the verb 'furthered' should be replaced with 'would further' or any other trick that elaborate this meaning.
note: I think using an adverb to modify 'discharging' which is a noun is not wrong because it is actually a gerund which hold some of the properties of the verb.

B. to constitutionally discharge any service member for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military was required to first prove that the service member’s discharge would significantly further, and was

C. in order to constitutionally discharge any service member for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military was required to first prove that the service member’s discharge will significantly further, and will be
problems:
1. 'in order to' is wordy, and can be replaced with 'to'
2. 'was required' is not in tense agreement with 'will '

D. in order to discharge any service member constitutionally for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military will require to first prove that the service member’s discharge will significantly further, and will be
problems:
1. 'in order to' is wordy, and can be replaced with 'to'
2. 'will require' is an active voice which alter the meaning as if the military is the one requiring others

E. for constitutional discharge of any service member for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military would have required that it prove that the service member’s discharge would significantly further, and was
1. 'would have required' is an active voice which alter the meaning as if the military is the one requiring others. Also, "would+have+verb" is used to emphasize regret that an action is not done. All these meanings are far from what the main topic is saying.

so B
_________________

Originally posted by Mahmoudfawzy83 on 26 Dec 2018, 12:04.
Last edited by Mahmoudfawzy83 on 29 Dec 2018, 04:09, edited 1 time in total.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
P
Joined: 17 Oct 2016
Posts: 259
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Healthcare
GMAT 1: 640 Q40 V38
GMAT 2: 680 Q48 V35
GPA: 3.05
WE: Pharmaceuticals (Health Care)
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
The court held that, for constitutionally discharging any service memb  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Dec 2018, 03:54
1
1
abaml wrote:
The court held that, for constitutionally discharging any service member for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military required to first prove that the service member’s discharge significantly furthered, and was necessary to further, the military’s interests in maintaining morale, unit cohesion, and good order and discipline in the Armed Forces.


A. for constitutionally discharging any service member for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military required to first prove that the service member’s discharge significantly furthered, and was

B. to constitutionally discharge any service member for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military was required to first prove that the service member’s discharge would significantly further, and was

C. in order to constitutionally discharge any service member for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military was required to first prove that the service member’s discharge will significantly further, and will be

D. in order to discharge any service member constitutionally for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military will require to first prove that the service member’s discharge will significantly further, and will be

E. for constitutional discharge of any service member for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military would have required that it prove that the service member’s discharge would significantly further, and was


Can someone explain when to use "would" vs "was"? In many sentences, I feel like I can use "would" to substitute for "was" like in this example below. I know the answer is B but would it be right to say - "the military WOULD BE required to first prove that the service member's discharge would significantly further, and WOULD BE necessary to further.."


Here use of "would" is most appropriate as court (in past) opined that something "would" be necessary. So A,C,D are out.

Also, Military WAS required to prove something before discharging a soldier, as in first prove then discharge. So Military WAS required to prove that service members removal WOULD(Future tense used in the past) be necessary.

Use of WOULD is considered appropriate when:

1. Using future tense in a past. (Buffett was sure that his investments would grow in future)
2. Politeness (I would like to volunteer my services.)
3. Hypothetical scenarios (Germany would have won the world cup had it not been for its many injured players)
_________________
_____________________
Chasing the dragon
GMAT Club Bot
The court held that, for constitutionally discharging any service memb   [#permalink] 29 Dec 2018, 03:54
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The court held that, for constitutionally discharging any service memb

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne