Hoozan
The term Population Attributable Risk has been described as the reduction in incidence that would be observed if the population was entirely unexposed, compared with its current, actual exposure pattern
(A) has been described as the reduction in incidence that would be observed if the population was entirely unexposed, compared with its current, actual exposure pattern
(B) has been described as the reduction in incidence that would be observed if the population were entirely unexposed, compared with its current, actual exposure pattern
(C) has been described as the reduction in incidence that would have been observed if the population were entirely unexposed, compared to its current, actual exposure pattern
(D) can be described as the reduction in incidence that would be observed if the population was entirely unexposed, compared with its current, actual exposure pattern
(E) could be described as the reduction in incidence that would be observed if the population was entirely unexposed, compared with its current, actual exposure pattern
Looked at the subjunctive and got influenced. Did not observe the other differences/nuances in the options. Chose C since:
1. Missed out on the tense implication of 'would have been'- It is used when the intended meaning is that the event did not occur.
Eg- If the team had gone out for dinner, it would have dined at McD. (The event actually did not occur)
2. False split- Compared to and compared with are both correct. This is just a trap to confuse.
https://gmatclub.com/forum/compared-to- ... l#p3209017