The federal rules aimed at protecting human subjects of medical experi

The federal rules aimed at protecting human subjects of medical experiments were established to ensure that patients must be warned of potential risks and an independent panel would evaluate the experiment before it was conducted.

Since the meaning is pretty simple to understand, let’s proceed to the Error Analysis.

ERROR ANALYSIS:

1. The federal rules were made to ensure two things:
• patients must be warned of potential risks, and
• an independent panel would evaluate the experiment before it was conducted
The first entity is preceded by “that”, but the second one is not. We need before the second entity as well.

2. Use of “would evaluate” is correct because the main verb for this part of the sentence is written in simple past tense “was conducted”. Since the sentence is written in simple past tense, we must use past tense of “will” that is “would” here.
Now the entities in the list must be parallel. Since we have two clauses as entities, the context of the sentence requires that there be consistency in the verb tenses. Hence we need “would be warned”.
3. Also, “ensure” does not need the use of subjunctive verb. So “would be warned” will take care of this issue too.

PoE:

A) must be warned of potential risks and an independent panel would: Incorrect for the reasons stated above.

B) must be warned of potential risks and that an independent panel: Incorrect.
1. This choice repeats the verb tense (must) error as in choice A.
2. There is no need for subjunctive verb here. We do need “would” not only before “evaluate” but also before “be warned of”.

C) are warned about potential risks and that an independent panel: Incorrect.
1. Use of “are warned” is incorrect because the context of the sentence is set in the past tense.
2. Same “would” error as in choice B.
3. “warned of” is more formal than “warned about”. The latter is more colloquial. Hence, “warned of” is better

D) will be warned about potential risks and an independent panel would: Incorrect.
1. Use of “will be warned” leads to verb tense error
2. “that” is missing before the second entity in the list.

E) would be warned of potential risks and that an independent panel would: Correct.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________

Let's take a look at that before structure in another sentence:

NASA says that it will launch the rocket before the weather will get worse. ← This is wrong.

Before the weather will get worse is a time clause. With time clauses, if we want to communicate something about the future, we need to "pull" the verb back one step and use the simple present instead. The correct version is:

NASA says that it will launch the rocket before the weather gets worse. ← This is correct.

Now let's "backshift" everything in that sentence:

NASA says said that it will would launch the rocket before the weather gets got worse. ← This is correct.
_________________

E.

would is required to indicate future, unseen, effects of federal rules.
C is incorect: tense not consistent. "it was conducted" in non-underlined portion indicates past tense.
_________________

E for parallel structure and parallel tenses and correct idiom "be warned of"

E for parallel construction (that.. that..) and subjunctive usgae ( were - would )

I originally picked E for ||ism. But after reaching MGMAT SC and a couple of OG examples where words like 'rule' and 'laws' are associated with MUST instead of COULD/SHOULD/WOULD (since laws are mandatory and words like would/should/could imply one has a choice in obeying the law...) , I decided to go with B because that is the only option that has MUST in the beginning and removes WOULD from the second half. It didn't make sense to me but I went by the rules in MGMAT and OG. Turns out there are exceptions to the rule

How to avoid this trap?

would is needed for future potentiality and parallel construction (that.. that..)
Thus E.
_________________

The federal rules aimed at protecting human subjects of medical experiments were established to ensure that patients must be warned of potential risks and an independent panel would evaluate the experiment before it was conducted.

The sentence says "evaluate" so we cannot place an "an independent panel" before (is singular). Out B and C.
The sentence also says "were", hence we are talking about the past; so the verb "will" is not correct.
If we are in the past, and we want to make a prediction about the future "would" is correct over "will". This eliminates option D.

A) must be warned of potential risks and an independent panel would
E) would be warned of potential risks and that an independent panel would

The parallelism in A is not correct, E, on the other hand, is perfectly parallel: to ensure patients would be warned and that an independent panel would .

daagh Bishal123456789

I was able to narrow to A and E
But why would is preffered over must since parallelism is alright in A and E

A is flouting that 'that' parallelism. The rules wanted that X would be done and that Y would be done. E is using that for both the requirements.
Since this is fundamental, the use of must is not an issue between the two choices.
_________________

I am confused.

Since we have "before it was conducted", how can we designate “would evaluate” to an action that actually happened before "some past time"?

What is the difference between Option A and Option B regarding the usage 'That X and Y' and 'that X and that Y' in this case? I'd like to know difference in meaning in both cases.

Thanks,
TejaSV

Hi Tejaswy

It helps, in such cases, to think of this as being similar to a mathematical expression with parentheses. Expanding the parentheses would lead to application of the clause outside to each section within. In this particular case:

A) The federal rules aimed at protecting human subjects of medical experiments were established to ensure that (patients must be warned of potential risks and an independent panel would evaluate the experiment before it was conducted).

Expanding this applies "that" to both "patients must be..." and "an independent panel..."

B) The federal rules aimed at protecting human subjects of medical experiments were established to ensure (that patients must be warned of potential risks and that an independent panel would evaluate the experiment before it was conducted).

Here, expansion of the parentheses applies "ensure" to "that patients must be..." and "that an independent panel...".

The above is used to assess what must be parallel. From a meaning point of view, both usages are grammatically correct and lead to the same meaning.

Hope this helps.

Hi tejaswym95, with option E, the sentence is:

(a) The federal rules aimed at protecting human subjects of medical experiments were established to ensure that patients would be warned of potential risks and that an independent panel would evaluate the experiment before it was conducted.

Without repeating that, the sentence will be:

(b) The federal rules aimed at protecting human subjects of medical experiments were established to ensure that patients would be warned of potential risks and an independent panel would evaluate the experiment before it was conducted.

The repetition of that in (a) makes these two that structures parallel, clearly conveying that federal rules were established to ensure two things, since the structure is:

federal rules were established to ensure that <one-thing> and that <another-thing>

On the other hand, the absence of second that in (b) could imply the following interpretation:
(i) The federal rules were established to ensure that patients <one-thing> and
(ii) an independent panel would evaluate the experiment before it was conducted.

In other words, (ii) above (an independent panel would evaluate the experiment before it was conducted) could as well be the opinion of the author (and not necessarily an aim of the federal rules).

To summarize, repetition of that prevents the kind of interpretation as suggested in (b),

On that note, there are quite a few official examples, where that is repeated, but this just seems to be a preference of GMAT (especially when the second clause is quite far from the first), and not a rule.

For example, following would be correct:

Teacher suggested that Jack work hard and show the results.

What is not needed is:

Teacher suggested that Jack work hard and that Jack show the results.

Let's see some official examples where that is repeated:

#47, OG-13:
In 1713, Alexander Pope began his translation of the Illiad, a work that took him seven years to complete and that literary critic Samuel Johnson, Pope’s contemporary, pronounced the greatest translation in any language.

#97, OG-13:
Some anthropologists believe that the genetic homogeneity evident in the world's people is the result of a population bottleneck-that at some time in the past our ancestors suffered an event that greatly reduced their numbers and thus our genetic variation.

#3, Verbal Supplement:
However much United States voters may agree that there is a waste in government and that the government as a whole spends beyond its means, it is difficult to find broad support for a movement towards a minimal state.
_________________

VeritasKarishma GMATNinja - with regards to option C C

-- for the Y element in option C

Is there a verb tense for the Y element specifically ?

The entire sentence is in the past. Notice the non underlined part.

rules ... were established to ensure that ... before it was conducted.

So you use 'would'.
_________________

In this question, I chose C and justified it because rules are present today also and are ensuring both the things as well. So present tense made more sense to me. There is nothing mentioned about rules being not there today and not ensuring. So, C was more concise and hence chose it.PLease Help where I am going wrong? AndrewN GMATNinja DmitryFarber

Hello, pk6969. Choice (C) presents a trap for the unwitting test-taker who does not read and consider the entire sentence. I, too, like the flow of rules were established to ensure that patients are warned. In isolation, the sentence would work just fine. However, we cannot ignore the parallel marker and that that prefaces the latter part of the sentence. We need to check for parallelism:

1) The rules were established to ensure that patients are warned... AND
2) [The rules were established to ensure] that an independent panel evaluate the experiment

Now, why do the verb tenses not match up? You should keep in mind that the GMAT™ prefers a tight parallel structure whenever possible. A look at (E) shows the difference:

3) The rules were established to ensure that patients would be warned... AND
4) [The rules were established to ensure] that an independent panel would evaluate the experiment

In both halves, we get an embedded clause with a subject followed by a verb in the same tense, would + [infinitive]. There is no real need to evaluate whether would is the best way of expressing each half. It works, plain and simple, and the parallel elements are consistent, so the answer choice is hard to argue against. (E) is a superior answer to (C).

The way to get the upper hand on even the toughest SC questions is to be cautious. Your goal is not to chase the correct answer, but to get behind the one that is hardest to find fault with. Work from the ground up with fundamentals.

I hope that helps. Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew

i chose (B). there is no "would " and both the stems look parallel?