The proposed simplification of the tax code would repeal or

When we talk about a hypothetical future from a past scenario, we use "would have".

And when the outcome is uncertain, we use "would". "Will" is used when something is sure. "Tomorrow the sun will rise from the east".

Here, "would" is applicable.

jennpt generis chetan2u VeritasPrepBrian TommyWallach

please help me resolve my doubt
I feel that the usage of "Will" is correct here.
Reasoning : we are not contesting wether the proposal will do something... we are more concerned about WHAT WILL HAPPEN after the proposal is sanctioned... when we use "would" after proposal arent we still "predicting"What will happen??

i mean when we use "Would" arent we doubting the result of the proposal???

The proposed simplification of the tax code would repeal or modify a number of popular
tax breaks, including the deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so that income
tax rates could be reduced across the board.

A. would repeal or modify a number of popular tax breaks, including the
deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so that income tax rates could
be reduced
B. will repeal or modify a number of popular tax breaks, including the
deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so that income tax rates
can be reduced
C. will repeal or modify a number of popular tax breaks, which includes the
deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so that income tax rates could
be reduced
D. would repeal or modify a number of popular tax breaks, including the
deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so as to reduce income tax rates
E. would repeal and modify a number of popular tax breaks, including the
deductibility of mortgage interest payments, so that income tax rates could
be reduced

So as to is a legitimate idiom. Its meaning is fairly similar to that of in order to.
The difference involves the chain of causation / order of steps.

• "in order to do X" should describe an action(s) that DIRECTLY enable THE SUBJECT to do 'X'.

• "So as to do X" is for actions that only indirectly enable the subject to do 'X'. In this case, there should still be more intermediate steps that have to be completed, and/or other necessary actions that also have to be taken along with whatever is done 'so as to X'.
—BUT— ultimately, THE SUBJECT still has to be planning to do 'x'.


It's true that "so as to..." hasn't historically appeared in correct answers from GMAC—but NOT because this construction is wrong or unidiomatic.
The issue is simply the fact that SC items are all SINGLE sentences THAT MAKE SENSE BY THEMSELVES. Indirect causality is not easy to write into a single sentence! That's why "so as to..." isn't historically common in correct answers.

The same principle, by the way, also explains why "allow for PERSON/ENTITY to VERB" (= enabling this action INDIRECTLY, by setting up a necessary circumstance or fulfilling some sort of pre-requisite) doesn't much figure in correct answers—as opposed to "allow PERSON/ENTITY to VERB" (= giving DIRECT permission), which does appear in quite a few correct answers.


The ACTUAL REASON why "so as to..." is wrong here is in this color above.
The SUBJECT here is the proposed simplification of the tax code. The simplification, if it goes into effect, will eliminate a bunch of ways for tax-savvy people to reduce the amount of tax they pay. This simplification will force those taxpayers to pay more taxes—thus MAKING IT POSSIBLE for some OTHER, LATER policy/legislation to lower tax rates for a different group of taxpayers.
But, actually lowering the tax rates would require FURTHER lawmaking. The proposed policy that's the subject of this sentence WILL NOT lower the tax rates. It'll just clear out room for some OTHER policy to eventually do that.
Because the action of lowering tax rates will ••NOT•• done by THE SUBJECT, BOTH "in order to" AND "so as to" are incorrect here. For exactly the same reason!

"Would" is used when we talk about future in the past. Here we are talking about future in present. Also we cannot say for sure whether the outcome is ascertained or not?
Any thoughts?
Do you still think would is more correct than will?

OA Please....

please insert the OA using spoiler along with the question..

The sentence talks about a proposed law so the use of "would" and "could" is better than "will" and "can". If the law is already enacted then the use of "will" and "can" is correct. Will and can are used when talking about something which is certain and "would" and "could" are used when something is still not certain. So going by this the correct option is A.

A:Correct. Proper use of would/could to indicate proposed law.
B:Wrong. Will/Can cannot be used here since the law is not yet passed
C:Wrong.Will/Could is incorrect,should be either would/could or will/can . Also "which" refers to breaks(plural) so we need "include" to go with which.
D:Wrong: There is nothing wrong in this sentence as such but I think A is much better. I think "so as to" make the sentence sound little awkward.
E:Wrong. You cannot repeal and then modify. It should be repeal or modify.

I saw OA as B,( question is from Aristotle SC guide. Q.No : 30)

But I wonder why A is wrong.

The question talks about a proposal which is already disclosed/proposed. So the question speaks about an action which is already over and the proposal talk about something in the future. It should take would is this respect not will.

Can anyone throw some more light into this??

Can anybody throw some light into this question...
why A is not the correct answer

A is correct. Please read MGMAT's response

https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/wil ... 13562.html

WILL vs Would

i am not sure but the word proposed here pushes my answer to be A ;
Will and can is correctly used and i cant think of a reason to say they are incorrect except the word proposed - so if something is proposed we are making an assumption here that its not finalized so A

Apart from Will and Would , I have one more question.

the modifier including the deductibility ...modifies the entire preceding sentence. So should not it make senses with the subject of the sentence ???
here it seems to modify the tax breaks ???

Hi vishalkumar4mba, including is not really a present participle, but a preposition. Hence, the usual rules of present participial phrases (such as modifying subject of the sentence etc.) do not apply to including.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana especially mentions "including" and its implications. Have attached the corresponding section of the book, for your reference.

The main essence is :
A proposed statement is in past hence let it be in past, Lets not make it into future as in B.

So A is better than B. B changes meaning. .

Explanation:
Official Answer (OA) --> B
Concepts Tested ??? Tense, SV Agreement, Diction
A - would is incorrect since the sentence is talking about the future in the present. (SC
Grail - pg. 133)
C -Plural -tax breaks- cannot use singular verb - includes- (SC Grail - pg. 44)
D - would- is incorrect since the sentence is talking about the future in the present. So as to cannot be used to replace "in order to" (SC Grail ??? pg. 114)
E - One cannot repeal -and- modify both.


However, https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-proposed ... 40030.html mentions "A" as the correct answer.
Can experts please shed some light on this?

GMATNinja daagh EducationAisle


Explanation:

Aristotle:

Official Answer (OA) – B
Concepts Tested – Tense, SV Agreement, Diction
A - ‗would‘ is incorrect since the sentence is talking about the future in the present. (SC
Grail – pg. 133)
C – Plural ‗tax breaks‘ cannot use singular verb ‗includes‘ (SC Grail – pg. 44)
D - ‗would‘ is incorrect since the sentence is talking about the future in the present. ‗So as
to‘ cannot be used to replace ‗in order to‘ (SC Grail – pg. 114)
E – One cannot repeal ‗and‘ modify both.


However, https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-proposed-simplification-of-the-tax-code-would-repeal-or-140030.html mentions Option A as the original answer. Can Experts please shed some light on this?

In my opinion "would" might be the correct verb form used here.

Here we are talking about the proposed tax code, something that has not yet happened and might, if passed as an act, modify or repeal tax breaks.

The above seems to be a typical hypothetical case in which the usage of "would" seems to be justified.

Rest I am open to corrections and better understanding.

Posted from my mobile device