Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
May 0701:00 AM EDT
-02:00 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and.....
May 0612:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
GMAT 615 to 715 in Just 15 Days! Riya’s 100-pt Improvement Strategy
May 0608:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
In Episode 3 of our GMAT Ninja Critical Reasoning series, we tackle Discrepancy, Paradox, and Explain an Oddity questions. You know the feeling: the passage gives you two facts that seem completely contradictory....- May 08
08:00 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join the special YouTube live-stream for selecting the winners of GMAT Club MBA Scholarships sponsored by Juno live. Watch who gets these coveted MBA scholarships offered by GMAT Club and Juno. 
May 0808:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
ravigupta2912
09 Mar 2021, 06:56
Kudos
Bookmarks
pearljiandani
Hello, although this isn’t addressed to me but I’ll try and share my thoughts in the hope that some of them may clear your doubts
First, subjunctive is used for hypothetical situations aka situations which are complete theory.
Eg: If I were on the GMAC committee, I would remove subjunctive from SC.
Now the above is completely hypothetical. Hence the “if” clauses uses the plural verb “were” and since this hypothetical is being talked today, therefore, the “then” clause will use simple conditional future aka “would”
Now say the conditional is not really theory, it could be very well positive, in that case, we don’t use subjunctive but rather indicative construct. And the tenses revert to normal rules of SV agreement.
Eg: If the members of GMAC committee decide, subjunctive will be dropped from the syllabi
Note in this case, the subject of “if” clause is plural aka “members of..committee” and hence takes the plural verb “decide”.
The “then” clause takes the simple future tense “will”.
Now you would ask why is this different from subjunctive? Well because we aren’t really talking theory, members can very well take that decision someday (I hope not - subjunctives are easy to master!). It’s more a realistic conditional sentence than theoretical. Hence, the indicative in second sentence and subjunctive (completely theory / imaginative) in the first example.
Lastly, “would have” is simply used when you’re making prediction about a past event and its effect, which is also in the past.
Eg: “If England had won the series 2-1 against India, it would have qualified for WTC finals” (theoretical aka subjunctive)
“If John had helped her, she would be much better today” (we are making it almost as a statement of fact, hence indicative in past, hence the “then” clause doesn’t use “would have”).
Hope I’ve been able to help!
Posted from my mobile device
12 Mar 2021, 07:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
Q: If the ice of Greenland and Antarctica were to melt, the sea level would rise at least 100 feet or more.
(A) If the ice of Greenland and Antarctica were to melt, the sea level would rise at least 100 feet or more. – sentence already has ‘at least’, so ‘or more’ is redundant
(B) Were the ice of Greenland and Antarctica to melt, the sea level would rise at least 100 feet. – the if is implied, were is the correct usage (if-were-would)
(C) Was the ice of Greenland and Antarctica to melt, the sea level would rise at least 100 feet or more. – should be ‘were’ as in B (if-were-would)
(D) If the ice of Greenland and Antarctica was melting, the sea level would rise at least 100 feet. - should be ‘were’ as in B (if-were-would)
(E) Should the ice of Greenland and Antarctica melt, the sea level would rise at least 100 feet or more. - The usage should follow the if-were-would structure
(A) If the ice of Greenland and Antarctica were to melt, the sea level would rise at least 100 feet or more. – sentence already has ‘at least’, so ‘or more’ is redundant
(B) Were the ice of Greenland and Antarctica to melt, the sea level would rise at least 100 feet. – the if is implied, were is the correct usage (if-were-would)
(C) Was the ice of Greenland and Antarctica to melt, the sea level would rise at least 100 feet or more. – should be ‘were’ as in B (if-were-would)
(D) If the ice of Greenland and Antarctica was melting, the sea level would rise at least 100 feet. - should be ‘were’ as in B (if-were-would)
(E) Should the ice of Greenland and Antarctica melt, the sea level would rise at least 100 feet or more. - The usage should follow the if-were-would structure
