papahiroshi wrote:
The courts ruled that have there being safety protocols initiated, the accident would not have occurred.
a) The courts ruled that have there being safety protocols initiated
b) The courts ruled that had there being safety protocols initiated
c) The courts rule that had there been safety protocols initiated
d) The courts ruled that had there been safety protocols initiated
e) The courts ruled that have there been safety protocols initiated
This question is from GMAT club Ultimate GMAT Grammar book.
Dear
papahiroshi,
I'm happy to respond.
I know this is from that Ult. Grammar book, but this is really not a very high quality question. It is not very GMAT like.
The only tricky thing about it is the sophisticated construction in the OA. This is a sophisticated way to write conditions.
Ordinary conditionals:
1)
If safety protocols were initiated, the accident would not have occurred.2)
If the student studied, he would have had passed the test.3)
If Carthage had won the Second Punic War, the Roman Empire never would have grown so large. Notice this are all conditionals that are contrary-to-fact about some past event. For this kind of condition, we can re-write it in a more sophisticated form, with the auxiliary verb "
had" at the beginning instead of "
if." The verb in the first part is modified to follow the "
had." The second half of the conditional, the "
would" clause, remains unchanged.
1)
Had safety protocols been initiated, the accident would not have occurred. = sophisticated
1a)
Had there been safety protocols initiated, the accident would not have occurred. = a bit awkward
2)
Had the student studied, he would have passed the test.
3)
Had Carthage won the Second Punic War, the Roman Empire never would have grown so large
In the OA, this question attempts a sophisticated structure, but phrases it in a less than optimal way. This really isn't a very good SC question.
Have I answered your question, my friend?
Mike