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 0312:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
May 0301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling to find the right strategies to score a 99 %ile on GMAT Focus? Riya (GMAT 715) boosted her score by 100-points in just 15 days! Discover how the right mentorship, tailored strategies, and an unwavering mindset can transform your GMAT prep.
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
May 0510:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
GMAT Inequalities is a high-frequency topic in GMAT Quant, but many students struggle because the concepts behave differently from standard algebra. Understanding the right rules, patterns, and edge cases can significantly improve both speed and accuracy.
May 0612:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
GMAT 615 to 715 in Just 15 Days! Riya’s 100-pt Improvement Strategy- May 06
08:30 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.
18 Nov 2020, 00:46
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
75%
(hard)
Question Stats:
33% (01:12) correct
67%
(01:17)
wrong
based on 334
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
In addition to the great benefits humankind has enjoyed since the discovery of certain technologies, many atrocities would have been prevented had the scientists who made the discoveries had the wisdom to discard such power.
A) had the scientists who made the discoveries had
B) if the scientists who made the discoveries have had
C) if the scientists who made the discoveries had
D) had the scientists who made the discoveries have
E) had the scientists who made the discoveries showed
18 Nov 2020, 00:49
Kudos
Bookmarks
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
You have seen inverted subjects and verbs before.
We are dealing with an inverted Type 3 conditional because the result clause uses would have been avoided.
(Those italicized words are described in different jargon-y ways. I use "perfect conditional.")
Type 3: IF past perfect, THEN perfect conditional.
IF this thing had happened, then THAT thing would have happened.
I grant you that the verb "had had" is positively wicked.
In options A, D, and E, the word IF has been deleted.
Reverse that process.
Change A, D, and E back into if-then statements:
(1) Reverse the order of the clauses:
→ A) Had the scientists who made the discoveries had the wisdom to discard such power many atrocities would have been prevented.
(2) replace HAD or WERE with IF and put the helping and main verbs back together into one verb phrase (remember that the second had means possessed or owned—had had = had possessed).
→ A) IF the scientists who made the discoveries had had the wisdom to discard []power, many atrocities would have been prevented.
Now the if clause comes before the main clause and the grouped verbs (had had) are in standard position.
Only option A follows the correct verb pattern for a Type 3 conditional in the IF clause: HAD + verbED (past participle)
The other four options use present perfect (B), simple past (C) , and present (D) tenses.
Option E uses had showed, which is not a correct verb tense of any kind.
The past participle of show is shown, not showed. In Option E, showed should be shown.
Option A correctly produces a Type 3 conditional.
Type 3 conditionals involve the impossible (and unreal) past and the probable result in the past.
Type 3: If THIS thing had happened, then THAT thing would have happened. (But neither thing happened.)
-- IF past perfect (had + verbED), THEN perfect conditional (would + have + verbED)
-- If they had cooperated better, then they would have finished their project on time. (But they didn't cooperate, and they didn't finish on time.)
-- are statements about the unreal past and probable result (often statements of regret or missed opportunity)
-- involve a past condition that is unreal or impossible and its probable result, in the past, that is also unreal (the condition did not happen and the result did not happen)
The structure of Type 3 conditionals, one more time
→ the IF clause is rendered in the past perfect tense: HAD + past participle (verbED), and
→ the MAIN (result) clause is rendered in the perfect conditional tense: WOULD + HAVE + verbED
→ IF past perfect, THEN perfect conditional.
Inverted conditionals are real things that exist on the GMAT.
Not all conditional statements require an IF/THEN construction.
In fact, on the GMAT, you will rarely see “then.”
I give examples of two such official questions below.
A few more exist that I cannot remember off the top of my head.
Finally, inverted conditionals are fairly common in formal writing.
Memorize this part, or start reading a lot:
Exactly three words can stand in for IF in an inverted conditional, and GMAT doesn't test the third one (as far as I recall).
We can invert conditionals with the words had, were, and should.
Had I known about the concert, I would have bought tickets.
If I had known about the concert, I would have bought tickets.
Were I president, I would wear a mask.
If I were president, I would wear a mask.
Should he not leave office peacefully, I will become an ex-pat. ← I don't recall having seen this form in any official GMAT questions
If he does not leave office peacefully, I will become an ex-pat.
This kind of should does not connote obligation.
I would not worry about this "should." Let it go.
Were it healthy to eat chocolate truffles frequently, I would eat chocolate truffles a few times a day.
(But it's not healthy to eat chocolate truffles frequently, and I don't eat chocolate truffles a few times a day.)
The three words that can replace IF must be used in certain ways.
HAD is used for past conditionals. (Had I known you were sad, I would have called you.)
SHOULD is used for future conditionals. (Should you need assistance, push the flight attendant button.)
WERE is used to talk about an imaginary or improbable future. (Were he awake, we would hear him rummaging around.)
You will almost certainly not see the inverted "should" structure.
But you might face a inverted conditional that begins with HAD or WERE.
SPOILER alert. Beneath the spoilers are links to official questions whose answers will be very easy to figure out with this material fresh in mind.
In this official question the inverted hypothetical {"were it") is the correct answer. HERE.
In this official question, were it not is in the non-underlined portion of the sentence. HERE.
• TAKEAWAYS
-- only were, had, and should can stand in for IF in inverted conditionals
-- I do not recall an official question that used the "should" construction
-- you should know that the words were and had can imply “if” in inverted conditionals
*************
• Economist/Bloomberg.prep OE
Answer choice A is the only grammatically correct one.
The conditional in this question begins with the result part (many atrocities would have been prevented) and continues with the condition part (had the scientists... power).
The result part is not underlined, so it must be correct.
The result clause is in Future Past Perfect (would have been), which indicates Conditional 3.
The condition part must be consistent with Conditional 3, that is, must be in Past Perfect, as is the case in this answer choice (had had).
In Conditional 3 sentences, "if" may be omitted, in which case the condition part begins with the word had (as it does in this and in some of the other answer choices).
Answer choice B is grammatically incorrect because the condition part is in Present Perfect (if... have had).
Answer C is also grammatically incorrect. The condition part is in Past Simple (if... had), which indicates Conditional 2, while the result part is in Future Past Perfect (would have been), indicating Conditional 3.
What is confusing about this answer choice is the use of the verb had in the condition part. Since had is also used in Conditional 3 sentences (only there it is followed by a verb in the third form - V3), it is easy to mistake the condition part for that of a Conditional 3.
Answer D is grammatically incorrect. The condition part should be consistent with Conditional 3, that is, must be in Past Perfect. The Past Perfect structure is had + V3. However, in this answer choice the verb had is followed by a verb in base form (have).
Finally answer choice E is also grammatically flawed.
In this answer choice the verb had is followed by a verb in past form (showed) in the condition clause.
The third form of the verb show is shown.
[In other words, showed should be shown.]
Another way of identifying the grammatical incorrectness of this answer choice is the following: The verb showed is conjugated - it is in the past form (V2).
The first verb, and only the first verb, of a sentence must be conjugated. Since showed is not the first verb (had is), it shouldn't be conjugated
• COMMENTS
I am glad to see some people I have not seen in awhile.
These answers range from good to very good. This question is very hard. Well done.
Project SC Butler: Sentence Correction (SC2)
Quote:
Type 3 conditionals
You have seen inverted subjects and verbs before.
We are dealing with an inverted Type 3 conditional because the result clause uses would have been avoided.
(Those italicized words are described in different jargon-y ways. I use "perfect conditional.")
Type 3: IF past perfect, THEN perfect conditional.
IF this thing had happened, then THAT thing would have happened.
I grant you that the verb "had had" is positively wicked.
In options A, D, and E, the word IF has been deleted.
Reverse that process.
Change A, D, and E back into if-then statements:
(1) Reverse the order of the clauses:
→ A) Had the scientists who made the discoveries had the wisdom to discard such power many atrocities would have been prevented.
(2) replace HAD or WERE with IF and put the helping and main verbs back together into one verb phrase (remember that the second had means possessed or owned—had had = had possessed).
→ A) IF the scientists who made the discoveries had had the wisdom to discard []power, many atrocities would have been prevented.
Now the if clause comes before the main clause and the grouped verbs (had had) are in standard position.
Only option A follows the correct verb pattern for a Type 3 conditional in the IF clause: HAD + verbED (past participle)
The other four options use present perfect (B), simple past (C) , and present (D) tenses.
Option E uses had showed, which is not a correct verb tense of any kind.
The past participle of show is shown, not showed. In Option E, showed should be shown.
Option A correctly produces a Type 3 conditional.
Type 3 conditionals involve the impossible (and unreal) past and the probable result in the past.
Type 3: If THIS thing had happened, then THAT thing would have happened. (But neither thing happened.)
-- IF past perfect (had + verbED), THEN perfect conditional (would + have + verbED)
-- If they had cooperated better, then they would have finished their project on time. (But they didn't cooperate, and they didn't finish on time.)
-- are statements about the unreal past and probable result (often statements of regret or missed opportunity)
-- involve a past condition that is unreal or impossible and its probable result, in the past, that is also unreal (the condition did not happen and the result did not happen)
The structure of Type 3 conditionals, one more time
→ the IF clause is rendered in the past perfect tense: HAD + past participle (verbED), and
→ the MAIN (result) clause is rendered in the perfect conditional tense: WOULD + HAVE + verbED
→ IF past perfect, THEN perfect conditional.
Inverted conditionals are real things that exist on the GMAT.
Not all conditional statements require an IF/THEN construction.
In fact, on the GMAT, you will rarely see “then.”
I give examples of two such official questions below.
A few more exist that I cannot remember off the top of my head.
Finally, inverted conditionals are fairly common in formal writing.
Memorize this part, or start reading a lot:
Exactly three words can stand in for IF in an inverted conditional, and GMAT doesn't test the third one (as far as I recall).
We can invert conditionals with the words had, were, and should.
Had I known about the concert, I would have bought tickets.
If I had known about the concert, I would have bought tickets.
Were I president, I would wear a mask.
If I were president, I would wear a mask.
Should he not leave office peacefully, I will become an ex-pat. ← I don't recall having seen this form in any official GMAT questions
If he does not leave office peacefully, I will become an ex-pat.
This kind of should does not connote obligation.
I would not worry about this "should." Let it go.
Were it healthy to eat chocolate truffles frequently, I would eat chocolate truffles a few times a day.
(But it's not healthy to eat chocolate truffles frequently, and I don't eat chocolate truffles a few times a day.)
The three words that can replace IF must be used in certain ways.
HAD is used for past conditionals. (Had I known you were sad, I would have called you.)
SHOULD is used for future conditionals. (Should you need assistance, push the flight attendant button.)
WERE is used to talk about an imaginary or improbable future. (Were he awake, we would hear him rummaging around.)
You will almost certainly not see the inverted "should" structure.
But you might face a inverted conditional that begins with HAD or WERE.
SPOILER alert. Beneath the spoilers are links to official questions whose answers will be very easy to figure out with this material fresh in mind.
In this official question the inverted hypothetical {"were it") is the correct answer. HERE.
In this official question, were it not is in the non-underlined portion of the sentence. HERE.
• TAKEAWAYS
-- only were, had, and should can stand in for IF in inverted conditionals
-- I do not recall an official question that used the "should" construction
-- you should know that the words were and had can imply “if” in inverted conditionals
*************
• Economist/Bloomberg.prep OE
Answer choice A is the only grammatically correct one.
The conditional in this question begins with the result part (many atrocities would have been prevented) and continues with the condition part (had the scientists... power).
The result part is not underlined, so it must be correct.
The result clause is in Future Past Perfect (would have been), which indicates Conditional 3.
The condition part must be consistent with Conditional 3, that is, must be in Past Perfect, as is the case in this answer choice (had had).
In Conditional 3 sentences, "if" may be omitted, in which case the condition part begins with the word had (as it does in this and in some of the other answer choices).
Answer choice B is grammatically incorrect because the condition part is in Present Perfect (if... have had).
Answer C is also grammatically incorrect. The condition part is in Past Simple (if... had), which indicates Conditional 2, while the result part is in Future Past Perfect (would have been), indicating Conditional 3.
What is confusing about this answer choice is the use of the verb had in the condition part. Since had is also used in Conditional 3 sentences (only there it is followed by a verb in the third form - V3), it is easy to mistake the condition part for that of a Conditional 3.
Answer D is grammatically incorrect. The condition part should be consistent with Conditional 3, that is, must be in Past Perfect. The Past Perfect structure is had + V3. However, in this answer choice the verb had is followed by a verb in base form (have).
Finally answer choice E is also grammatically flawed.
In this answer choice the verb had is followed by a verb in past form (showed) in the condition clause.
The third form of the verb show is shown.
[In other words, showed should be shown.]
Another way of identifying the grammatical incorrectness of this answer choice is the following: The verb showed is conjugated - it is in the past form (V2).
The first verb, and only the first verb, of a sentence must be conjugated. Since showed is not the first verb (had is), it shouldn't be conjugated
• COMMENTS
I am glad to see some people I have not seen in awhile.
These answers range from good to very good. This question is very hard. Well done.
General Discussion
18 Nov 2020, 00:58
Kudos
Bookmarks
If they had... this would have been prevented...
Straight away A, D, E out.
A)had the scientists who made the discoveries had
B) if the scientists who made the discoveries have had (Keep)
C) if the scientists who made the discoveries had (Keep)
D)had the scientists who made the discoveries have
E)had the scientists who made the discoveries showed
Confused between B & C.
B=> if they have had the wisdom to discard the power?
C=> if they had the wisdom to discard the power, this would have been prevented.
IMO C is correct
Straight away A, D, E out.
A)
B) if the scientists who made the discoveries have had (Keep)
C) if the scientists who made the discoveries had (Keep)
D)
E)
Confused between B & C.
B=> if they have had the wisdom to discard the power?
C=> if they had the wisdom to discard the power, this would have been prevented.
IMO C is correct
