Under a provision of the Constitution that was never applied, Congress

This is another one that we covered in our recent YouTube webinar on verb tenses, so if you prefer your SC explanations in video form, feel free to head over there.

And if you’re still reading this: the key principle here is that whenever the GMAT uses different verb tenses in a sentence, the actions need to occur at different times. In other words: the key to GMAT verb tenses is making sure that the verb tenses logically match the sequence of events. Sounds easy, but sometimes the execution can get tricky.


OK, so the phrase “was never applied” is in the simple past tense, which suggests that the action is completely over. In this case, the phrase “under a provision that was never applied” would then imply that the provision of the Constitution can no longer be applied – presumably because the Constitution or the provision itself no longer exist.

And even if you know nothing about the U.S. political system (our Constitution is still here… perhaps barely, depending on your political views), you know that the past tense is inappropriate from the sentence itself. Why? “Congress has been required…” – and that’s present perfect tense, which can only be used for an action that starts in the past and continues into the present.

In other words: the sentence is telling us that Congress is still currently required to call a convention… but under a provision that no longer exists, because it “was never applied” in the past tense. That makes no sense.

For bonus points: the “it” does not have a proper referent here. “It” is trying to refer back to the entire phrase “call a convention”, but that’s a verb phrase, not a singular noun.

Either way, (A) is out.


(B) has all of the same problems as (A): the verb tenses make no sense, and “it” is trying to refer back to “call a convention”, so the singular pronoun “it” is incorrect. (B) is gone, too.


The “it” is still a problem here, and so is the verb tense.

Plus, this thing isn’t a legitimate sentence: “under a provision that was never applied” is just a modifier, and the rest of the sentence “whereby… blah blah” is a dependent clause. We need an independent clause somewhere in this sentence for it to be correct, and we simply don’t have one.

So we can eliminate (C).


Oh goody, the verb tense finally looks OK. Congress is – in the present – still required to call a convention, but the provision “has never been applied.” The use of present perfect tense correctly suggests that the provision could still be applied someday.

Also, the “it” from (A), (B), and (C) has been replaced with “so.” That’s great: “so” can basically replace a verb phrase – I think to think of it as a pronoun, but a pronoun that applies only to verbs and verb phrases. In this case: “Congress is required to call a convention… when formally asked to [call a convention].” That works just fine.

Trouble is, this thing still isn’t a sentence, for the same reasons as in (C). So (D) is gone.

Crap, I hope we like (E).


Yup, this works. It’s basically the same as (D), except that the “whereby” has been removed, giving us a full, independent clause after the comma. So this one is a legit sentence, without any pronoun or verb tense issues.

So (E) is our winner.

Under a provision of the Constitution that was never applied, Congress has been required to call a convention for considering possible amendments to the document when formally asked to do it by the legislatures of two-thirds of the states.


(A) was never applied, Congress has been required to call a convention for considering possible amendments to the document when formally asked to do it

(B) was never applied, there has been a requirement that Congress call a convention for consideration of possible amendments to the document when asked to do it formally

(C) was never applied, whereby Congress is required to call a convention for considering possible amendments to the document when asked to do it formally

(D) has never been applied, whereby Congress is required to call a convention to consider possible amendments to the document when formally asked to do so

(E) has never been applied, Congress is required to call a convention to consider possible amendments to the document when formally asked to do so

Under a provision of the Constitution that was never applied, Congress has been required to call a convention for considering possible amendments to the document when formally asked to do it by the legislatures of two-thirds of the states.


(A) was never applied, Congress has been required to call a convention for considering possible amendments to the document when formally asked to do it

(B) was never applied, there has been a requirement that Congress call a convention for consideration of possible amendments to the document when asked to do it formally

(C) was never applied, whereby Congress is required to call a convention for considering possible amendments to the document when asked to do it formally

(D) has never been applied, whereby Congress is required to call a convention to consider possible amendments to the document when formally asked to do so

(E) has never been applied, Congress is required to call a convention to consider possible amendments to the document when formally asked to do so