V11-43

Official Solution:

The court held that, for constitutionally discharging any service member for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military required to first prove that the service member’s discharge significantly furthered, and was necessary to further, the military’s interests in maintaining morale, unit cohesion, and good order and discipline in the Armed Forces.

A. for constitutionally discharging any service member for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military required to first prove that the service member’s discharge significantly furthered, and was
B. to constitutionally discharge any service member for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military was required to first prove that the service member’s discharge would significantly further, and was
C. in order to constitutionally discharge any service member for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military was required to first prove that the service member’s discharge will significantly further, and will be
D. in order to discharge any service member constitutionally for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military will require to first prove that the service member’s discharge will significantly further, and will be
E. for constitutional discharge of any service member for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military would have required that it prove that the service member’s discharge would significantly further, and was


(A) To depict purpose, the infinitive to constitutionally discharge is preferred to the prepositional phrase for constitutionally discharging. The use of simple past furthered wrongly implies that the service member’s discharge had already taken place.

(B) Correct Infinitive to constitutionally discharge is used to depict purpose. The conditional tense would further is correctly used to depict that the discharge had not taken place yet

(C) The future tense will further should not be used with past tense was required, instead a conditional tense would should be used to depict future from the past’s point of view.

(D) In a reporting sentence, future tense (will require) should not be used with past tense (held).

(E) To depict purpose, the infinitive to constitutionally discharge is preferred to the prepositional phrase for constitutionally discharging. Future perfect tense would have required is incorrect.


Answer: B
_________________

I think this is a poor-quality question and the explanation isn't clear enough, please elaborate. As per my understanding
Court held that to constitutionally discharge-
Condition -Millitary needs to prove that ...........
Therefore I am finding difficult to understand why " was required "is used .It should be " requires ".because it's a fact and ihence
need to be in simple present

For Ex- to get good score in gmat ,sachin needs to perform welll in mock test

You are right in that for universal truth, simple present needs to be used. The example you have given is a universal truth. However the statement in the question may not be a universal truth. It is possible that during the judgement it was required to prove but now it may no longer be required. Hence simple past is alright.

Is this sentence correct

The court has given a judgement that, in order to discharge any service member constitutionally for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military will require to first prove that the service member’s discharge will significantly further, and will be necessary to further, the military’s interests in maintaining morale, unit cohesion, and good order and discipline in the Armed Forces.

If not please explain why in detail.

Very poor explanation and very poor quality question

Can someone give detailed explanation why option D is wrong?

Posted from my mobile device

hi,
what do you mean by universally truth?

thanks

I don't get why D is wrong?

Example sentence: I have said in the past that, in order to get good grades, you will need to study more.

Can someone please help me with the elaborate explanation of this question? I am too confused.

Just another thought on options C and D. Can we eliminate them on the basis of "will be necessary". Going by the meaning of the sentence, it doesn't make sense to say that the charge will be necessary at a future date. I'd be happy to hear your opinion on this.

GMATNinja genesis

can you please explain why D is wrong?

I consider this question not really a good question as such however there were a few interesting contentions that I found worth discussing here on the forum,

The court held that for constitutionally discharging any service member for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military required to first prove that the service member’s discharge significantly furthered, and was necessary to further, the military’s interests in maintaining morale, unit cohesion, and good order and discipline in the Armed Forces.

The intent or the purpose is shown by using an infinitive, so the right option should contain 'to discharge'.
Furthered renders the meaning of completed action, here in the context of this sentence use of past participle means that even before the cause that gave rise to this action had not even taken place the military had to prove the evidence for the effect of his constitutional discharge, hence future from the perspective of past needs to be depicted by using "would" before the verb.

souvik101990, sayantanc2k, EducationAisle

How do you justify second 'was' in the OA. Should'nt it be 'would', which is // and resonates with the idea of 'future wrt past'?

I think this is a poor-quality question and the explanation isn't clear enough, please elaborate.

Posted from my mobile device