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

Question

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

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 133: Sentence Correction 
 Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day:   E-mail  |  RSS 
 For All QOTD Questions  Click Here

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

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  .” 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.

samusa · Answer

D is wrong because in D , there is no Main clause . D does not make a complete sentence .

Under a provision of the Constitution that  was never applied  has never been applied=  Dependent clause 
whereby Congress is required to call a convention to consider possible amendments to the document when formally asked to do so=  Dependent clause

Whereby = in which

Ony E clears this sentence fragmentation and also other errors.

E is a complete sentence. 
Under a provision of the Constitution that  was never applied  has never been applied=  Dependent clause 
Congress is required to call a convention to consider possible amendments to the document when formally asked to do so=  Main clause...
 
( page 239 and 303 of verbal review 2nd edition.)

ExpertsGlobal5 · Answer

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Concepts tested here: Grammatical Construction + Tenses + Pronouns + Verb Forms + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• The present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present. 
• The simple past tense is used to refer to actions that concluded in the past.
• Information that is permanent in nature is best conveyed through the simple present tense.
• "do so" is the correct usage for referring to an action, and "do it" is the correct usage for referring to a noun.
• The infinitive verb form (“to + base form of verb" - "to + consider" in this sentence) is the preferred construction for referring to the intent or purpose of an action.

A:  This answer choice incorrectly uses the simple past tense verb "was never applied" to refer to an action that concluded in the past but continues to affect the present; remember, the present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present, and the simple past tense is used to refer to actions that concluded in the past. Further, Option A incorrectly uses the present perfect tense verb "has been required" to refer to information that is permanent in nature; remember, information that is permanent in nature is best conveyed through the simple present tense, and the present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present. Additionally, Option A incorrectly uses "do it" to refer to the action "call a convention"; remember, "do so" is the correct usage for referring to an action, and "do it" is the correct usage for referring to a noun. Besides, Option A uses the present participle ("verb+ing" - "considering" in this case) to refer to the purpose of the action "call a convention"; remember, for referring to the purpose or intent of an action, the infinitive verb form (“to + base form of verb" is preferred over the present participle ("verb+ing" - "considering" in this sentence) construction.

B:  This answer choice incorrectly uses the simple past tense verb "was never applied" to refer to an action that concluded in the past but continues to affect the present; remember, the present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present, and the simple past tense is used to refer to actions that concluded in the past. Further, Option B incorrectly uses the present perfect tense verb "has been" to refer to information that is permanent in nature; remember, information that is permanent in nature is best conveyed through the simple present tense, and the present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present. Additionally, Option B incorrectly uses "do it" to refer to the action "call a convention"; remember, "do so" is the correct usage for referring to an action, and "do it" is the correct usage for referring to a noun. Besides, Option B uses the phrase "for consideration" to refer to the purpose of the action "call a convention"; remember, for referring to the purpose or intent of an action, the infinitive verb form (“to + base form of verb") is the preferred construction. Option B also uses the passive construction "there has been a requirement", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

C:  This answer choice fails to form a complete sentence; as both "Under a provision of the Constitution that was never applied" and "whereby Congress is required...states" are both dependent clauses, this sentence lacks an independent subject. Further, Option C incorrectly uses the simple past tense verb "was never applied" to refer to an action that concluded in the past but continues to affect the present; remember, the present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present, and the simple past tense is used to refer to actions that concluded in the past. Additionally, Option C incorrectly uses "do it" to refer to the action "call a convention"; remember, "do so" is the correct usage for referring to an action, "do it" is the correct usage for referring to a noun. Besides, Option C uses the present participle ("verb+ing" - "considering" in this case) to refer to the purpose of the action "call a convention"; remember, for referring to the purpose or intent of an action, the infinitive verb form (“to + base form of verb" is preferred over the present participle ("verb+ing" - "considering" in this sentence) construction.

D:  This answer choice fails to form a complete sentence; as both "Under a provision of the Constitution that was never applied" and "whereby Congress is required...states" are both dependent clauses, this sentence lacks an independent subject.

E:   Correct.  This answer choice acts upon the independent subject noun "Congress" with the active verb "is required" to form a complete thought, producing a complete sentence. Further, Option E correctly uses the present perfect tense verb "has never been applied" to refer to an action that concluded in the past but continues to affect the present and correctly uses the simple present tense verb "is required" to refer to information that is permanent in nature. Additionally, Option E correctly uses "do so" to refer to the action "call a convention". Besides, Option E uses the infinitive verb form ("to + base form of verb" - "to + consider" in this sentence) to refer to the purpose of the action "call a convention". Option E is also free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

Hence, E is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Simple Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATNTtugB9fM

To understand the concept of "Present Perfect Tense" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNmT9obXukI

To understand the concept of "Infinitives" versus "Present Participles" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbr_XRGL3js

All the best!
Experts' Global Team

vd · Answer

Ok a disclaimer at the outset ..i m no expert at it but here is my line of reasoning as to why E is better than D

If we see carefully, the only difference between D and E is usage of 'whereby' ...if we go back to the concept of 3Cs as per Manhattan we would not want to pick up D because E is a more    succinit    choice as compared to D

I hope this helps

daagh · Answer

Because you cannot find a suitable referent for the pronoun  it , choices A, B, and C are gone. Between D and E, D is a fragment without a working verb. The conjunction  whereby  spoils the show for D. E survives

TARGET730 · Answer

Can anyone explain why "was never applied" is wrong in A , B & C?

KyleWiddison · Answer

"was never applied" is wrong because it's an incorrect tense. Using the past tense implies that the provision can't be applied anymore because it or the constitution doesn't exist anymore. The provision still exists and the Constitution that still stands, so the provision could still be applied. We need to used the present perfect tense "has never been applied" to suggest a beginning in the past but effects that are still ongoing.

KW

thangvietname · Answer

I think simple past tense can not go with "never". so, "was never applied" itself. we do not need to analyse the meaning relation of this part to the rest of the sentence.

am i correct? can you give your idea on my thinking

sayantanc2k · Answer

"Never" can be used with simple past. Consider the following sentence:

I did not go there ever. .. correct

The above sentence can be written as:
I never went there. (not ever = never, did go = went) ... correct

trungnguyenn · Answer

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, B and C are out because: (1) the present perfect tense is preferred since we don't know specific time in the past; or (2) pronoun " it " is ambiguous since it doesn't refer to any specifics.

Option D: conjunction " whereby " makes the sentence incomplete since the first part of the sentence begins with " Under " which subordinates the clause.

Hence E correct.

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  ---  Correct

aceGMAT21 · Answer

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

Understanding the intended meaning of this sentence will be helpful in nailing this SC question quickly.

Error Analysis of the original sentence :

1. TENSE USAGE :  
The provision of the Constitution was never applied so the usage of "has been required" is incorrect. We are just stating the details of the provision so SIMPLE PRESENT tense would be preferred.

2. TO CONSIDER vs FOR CONSIDERING  
To Consider would be preferred over FOR CONSIDERING. Because "To Consider" implies the intention as required by the provision.

3. AMBIGUOUS PRONOUN "IT" in TO DO IT 
Usage of TO DO IT is incorrect here, as IT cannot refer back to the entire preceding phrase. TO DO SO is preferred in this context.

4. Usage of whereby is even making the structure incorrect 
 Under the provisions ....................., whereby..........................  ( In this structure there is no Independent Clause. )
Under the provisions... is a prepositional modifier and its modifying Congress. So, the modified entity is needed just after the comma. Also, Dependent Clause (Under the provisions...) requires an Independent Clause to complete the sentence.

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 
  Incorrect for the reasons mentioned above.

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
 required (VERB FORM) is always more clearer AND preferred over the noun form requirement (NOUN FORM). Also, the construction "there has been a requirement" is too wordy.

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
  INCORRECT, for the reasons mentioned above.

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
  INCORRECT, for the reasons mentioned above.

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
 CORRECT.

Skywalker18 · Answer

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 -- verb tense issue-- was never applied is incorrect as it does not indicate the current state of provision ; Congress has been required is incorrect -- we need simple present tense ;
For consideration is unidiomatic -- we need to consider ; pronoun it has been incorrectly used to refer to call a convention

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 -- same as A ; there has been a requirement is wordy

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 -- same as A ; No independent clause

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 --No independent clause

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--Correct

Answer E

warrior1991 · Answer

GMATNinja

GMATNinjaTwo

I rejected D based on one simple parallel theory.

I applied the same rule in this question.

Under the provision,...... 
Now we will straightaway move to what the provision calls for.Hence whereby is redundant an E is the answer.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

GMATNinja · Answer

This isn't an issue of faulty parallelism, but sure, it's perfectly legitimate to see that "under a provision" is a modifier and that whatever is happening under this provision should follow immediately after. And as you suggested, that doesn't happen correctly in several of the answer choices.

Nicely done!

thangvietnam · Answer

I think "never was applied" is itself wrong. never implies that the condition exist until now , so, only present perfect is fit. we do not need to see other verb/tense in the sentence.

am I correct?

the second thing is

for consideration and for considering implies that the subject of the main clause, congress, dose not do consideration. this is terrible logic mistake, gmat must test us.

DmitryFarber · Answer

"Was never applied" might work if we were only talking about the past. However, since the point is that it still has not applied up to this day, then the present perfect makes more sense. That doesn't mean "was never applied" is illogical, though. If it HAS NEVER been applied, then it's also true that it WAS NEVER applied in the past.

As for "for consideration," you're right. It's not clear in this case whether congress or some other group will actually do the consideration. "To consider" is much more clear and direct.

As for "for consideration," you're right. It's not clear in this case whether congress or some other group will actually do the consideration. "To consider" is much more clear and direct.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

The use of the simple past tense ‘was never applied’ does not make sense. 
Even after reading it twice, you’ll feel that something is amiss. 
It says Congress ‘ has been required ’ to call a convention under a provision that ‘ was never applied ’.

Seems like a  tense mix up .

Look at the options: 
Yes, Options D and E use ‘has never been applied’ which makes sense in this sentence.

Plus, there are  pronoun issues  in Options A, B and C.

Eliminate  the first three options –  A, B and C.

When we substitute  Option D  back into the sentence, we realize that it isn’t a complete sentence.  Eliminate.

Option E  is the best option. 
 
Hope this helps!

Kinshook · Answer

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

IMO E

Abi1995 · Answer

I used tenses to eliminate A B and C, D had whereby issues. 
So correct answer is E

Posted from my mobile device

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards