The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) had long been

Question

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) had long been expected to announce a reduction in output to bolster sagging oil prices, but officials of the organization just recently announced that the group will pare daily production by 1.5 million barrels by the beginning of next  year, but only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, were to trim output  by a total of 500,000 barrels a day.

(A) year, but only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, were to trim output

(B) year, but only if the output of non-OPEC nations, which includes Norway, Mexico, and Russia, is trimmed

(C) year only if the output of non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, would be trimmed

(D) year only if non-OPEC nations, which includes Norway, Mexico, and Russia, were trimming output

(E) year only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, trim output

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/15/business/oil-prices-in-flux-as-opec-decides-against-cut-in-output.html

Creating the prospect of a devastating price war, OPEC said today that it would not cut production further unless major producers outside the group also decreased their output sizably by Jan. 1.

OPEC had been widely expected to announce a reduction in output to bolster sagging oil prices. But at a meeting here today, officials said the group would be willing to pare daily production by 1.5 million barrels by the beginning of next  year only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico and Russia, also trimmed output  by a total of 500,000 barrels a day. For the time being, that seems unlikely.

mikemcgarry · Accepted Answer

I'm happy to help with this. :-)

First of all, Jp27 , I appreciate that you want to post the OA after some discussion, but when you post a question, please specify a source . There are many many sources of GMAT SC questions --- some of them (e.g. MGMAT) are exemplary, and some of them are pure trash. In this question, I would beginning by simplifying just to get a sense of the layout ...... OPEC has been expected to cut output, BUT they said they would cut output .... That first "but" (in the phrase " but officials of the organization ... ") is a strong contrast, and without the end of the sentence, it doesn't make sense --- they were expected to cut output, and they announce they were cutting output --- what's the contrast? The contrast only makes sense if we place a condition in the next part of the sentence "only if" They were expected to do X, BUT they announce they were going to do X only if blah blah. The second "but" is awkward and logically incorrect --- both (A) & (B) begin that second phrase with an additional "but" ---- They were expected to do X, BUT they announce they were going to do X but only if blah blah. That's just plain wrong. (A) and (B) are both out right away. That leaves us with (C) & (D) & (E). Choice (C) has an awkward and questionably correct construction " ...only if the output .... would be trimmed ... " First of all, this is passive --- never a boon on GMAT SC. Furthermore, it's in the subjunctive, suggesting a hypothetical situation. See this post for more on the subjunctive mood. https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-gramm ... ive-tense/ In this particular sentence, there is nothing hypothetical or theoretical! OPEC is playing hardball --- we'll cut output only if you guys cut output . Imagine two people facing some kind of challenge --- eating a jalapeno pepper, jumping a motorcycle over a gulley, etc. ---- person A might say, " I'm going to do it only if you do it ." In other words, that language would be very practical and direct. Person A would never say " I am going to do it only if this would be done by you ." This latter form is exactly what we have in (C). Choice (C) is an unmitigated disaster that should be taken out back and shot. It is completely wrong. (D) is active, but it's still in the subjunctive, which suggests contrary-to-fact or hypothetical situation. This is not at all appropriate for the nature of his situation, which involves a challenge --- yeah, we'll cut output, but only if you do also . OPEC is implicitly issuing a challenge to non-OPEC oil producers. A challenge always involves direct simple clear language. We need the simple present test. (E) is the only one that phrases things in the simple present tense .... " ... only if non-OPEC nations ... trim output... " It's clear and direct, grammatically correct, and appropriate to the emotional tone of the situation. This is by far the best answer. Does all this make sense? Mike :-)

chetan2u · Answer

hi , 
there are three possiblities of if clause...
1)
 type -------------  if-clause  ----------   main clause 
 1----------- Simple Present---------- will-future  
 2----------- Simple Past--------- would + infinitive  
 3----------- Past Perfect--------- would + have + past participle

so "would will never come in IF CLAUSE..
and that is exactly what C is doing...
.year only if the output of non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia,  would  be trimmed..

the sentence follows :-
 1----------- Simple Present---------- will-future

hope it clears the air around if then clause

USADream · Answer

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) had long been expected to announce a reduction in output to bolster sagging oil prices, but officials of the organization just recently announced that  the group will pare daily production  by 1.5 million barrels by the beginning of next  year, but only  if non-OPEC nations , including Norway, Mexico, and Russia,  were to trim  output  by a total of 500,000 barrels a day.

A.year, but only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, were to trim output
B.year, but only if the output of non-OPEC nations, which includes Norway, Mexico, and Russia, is trimmed
C.year only if the output of non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, would be trimmed
D.year only if non-OPEC nations, which includes Norway, Mexico, and Russia, were trimming output
E.year only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, trim output

POE: 
 1. use but or only if, otherwise using both will create redundant error.
 so option A & B are out.
2. in if ... then(then is hidden in this structure) construction:
 if..(followed by)simple present tense ---------------> then ....(followed by) either simple present or simple future
 and vice versa is also true.
 here then(hidden) is followed by simple future so if should be followed by simple present!!

Option C : the group will pare daily production .... if non-OPEC nations ..would be trimmed (break the rule)
 Option D : the group will pare daily production .... if non-OPEC nations ..were trimming output(also break the rule)
 Option E : the group will pare daily production .... if non-OPEC nations ..trim output

1 kudos if you like it!!

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

Hello Everyone!

Let's tackle this question, one problem at a time, and figure out how to get to the correct option quickly! To start, here is the original question with any major differences between the options highlighted in  orange :

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) had long been expected to announce a reduction in output to bolster sagging oil prices, but officials of the organization just recently announced that the group will pare daily production by 1.5 million barrels by the beginning of next  year, but only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, were to trim output  by a total of 500,000 barrels a day.

(A)  year, but only if  non-OPEC nations,  including  Norway, Mexico, and Russia,  were to trim output 
(B)  year, but only if  the output of non-OPEC nations,  which includes  Norway, Mexico, and Russia,  is trimmed 
(C)  year only if  the output of non-OPEC nations,  including  Norway, Mexico, and Russia,  would be trimmed 
(D)  year only if  non-OPEC nations,  which includes  Norway, Mexico, and Russia,  were trimming output 
(E)  year only if  non-OPEC nations,  including  Norway, Mexico, and Russia,  trim output

After a quick glance over the options, a few key differences jump out:

1. only if vs. but only if
2. including vs. which includes
3. were to trim / is trimmed / would be trimmed / were trimming / trim

Let's start with #1 on our list: only if vs. but only if.  The words "but" and "only if" both seem to have the same function here - to create a conditional statement. We also have the conjunction "but" used earlier in the sentence. It's generally considered a bad idea to use the same coordinating conjunction (and, for, nor, but, or, yet, so) more than once in a sentence.  So let's rule out A & B because they repeat the conjunction "but," which makes this sentence sound redundant and confusing.

Next, let's tackle #3 on our list: verb tense of "to trim."  We need to make sure that whichever option we choose uses active voice, the correct verb tense, and conveys a clear meaning to the reader. To more easily spot the problem here, I'm going to cross out the non-essential phrase that's meant to throw you off:

(C) year only if the output of non-OPEC nations,  including Norway, Mexico, and Russia,   would be trimmed 
 
This is  INCORRECT  because it distorts the meaning. By saying "would be trimmed," it suggests that some other person/group will trim output - not the nations themselves, which is the intended meaning.

(D) year only if non-OPEC nations,  which includes Norway, Mexico, and Russia,   were trimming output 
 
This is  INCORRECT  because it uses past tense instead of present or future tense. The non-OPEC nations haven't started trimming output already - otherwise this wouldn't be a problem. The condition is that OPEC will reduce their production  in the future  if those nations trim their output from here on out. The verb tense used here doesn't make logical sense, so it's wrong.

(E) year only if non-OPEC nations,  including Norway, Mexico, and Russia,   trim output 
 
This is  CORRECT ! Using the present tense "trim" works here because the non-OPEC nations have to start trimming output  now , so that OPEC will do what they say they're going to in the future.

There you have it - option E is the best choice!

Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.

daagh · Answer

Let me not go too deep into the topic trying to understand subjunctive possible hypotheticals etc. 
Choices B and D are out because they both denote the plural 'nations' with a singular verb 'includes'. C is also out because we never use the verb "would be trimmed" in the 'if clause'. A is also out because the future tense 'will pare' in the main clause will not gel with the past conditional 'were' in the 'if clause'. This leaves us barely with E.

ExpertsGlobal5 · Answer

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem: 
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of the crucial part of this sentence is that OPEC will pare daily production by 1.5 million barrels by the beginning of next year only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, trim output by a total of 500,000 barrels a day.

Concepts tested here: Subject-Verb Agreement + Meaning + Tenses + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• For referring to a hypothetical future event and its outcome, the preferred method is to express the hypothetical event in the simple present tense and express the outcome in the simple future tense.

A:  This answer choice uses the needlessly wordy phrases "but only if" and "were to trim", leading to awkwardness and redundancy; these phrases are redundant, as "but" and "were to" can be deleted without a loss of clarity. 
 
 B:  This answer choice incorrectly refers to the plural noun "nations" with the singular verb "includes". Further, Option B alters the meaning of this sentence through the phrase "if the output...is trimmed"; the use of the passive voice incorrectly implies that OPEC will pare daily production by the beginning of next year if a   non-specified entity   trims the output of non-OPEC nations; the intended meaning is that OPEC will pare daily production by the beginning of next year if the   non-OPEC nations themselves   trim their output. Additionally, Option B uses the needlessly wordy phrase "but only if", leading to awkwardness and redundancy; this phrase is redundant, as "but" can be deleted without a loss of clarity.

C:  This answer choice alters the meaning of this sentence through the phrase "if the output...would be trimmed"; the use of the passive voice incorrectly implies that OPEC will pare daily production by the beginning of next year if a   non-specified entity   trims the output of non-OPEC nations; the intended meaning is that OPEC will pare daily production by the beginning of next year if the   non-OPEC nations themselves   trim their output.

D:  This answer choice incorrectly refers to the plural noun "nations" with the singular verb "includes". Further, Option D incorrectly uses the simple past continuous tense verb "were trimming" to refer to a hypothetical future action; please remember, for referring to a hypothetical future event and its outcome, the preferred method is to express the hypothetical event in the simple present tense and express the outcome in the simple future tense.

E:   Correct.  This answer choice avoids the subject-verb agreement error seen in Options B and D, as it uses the present participle ("verb+ing" - "including" in this sentence) rather than an active verb. Further, Option E uses the phrase "in non-OPEC nations...trim output", conveying the intended meaning - that OPEC will pare daily production by the beginning of next year if the   non-OPEC nations themselves   trim their output. Additionally, Option E correctly refers to a hypothetical future action with the simple present tense verb "trim". Besides, Option E is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

Hence, E is the best answer choice.

All the best!
Experts' Global Team

sumitsarkar82 · Answer

I am surpised no-one said A & B are out bcos of the following reason...

by the beginning of next year, but only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia

This effectively means " beginning of next year " ..... " including Norway, Mexico, and Russia" which makes no sense. The comma after next year makes "but only if non-OPEC nations" as more a optional clause without which the sentence should complete.

Hence the comma after "next year" needs to disappear.

Didn't you guys notice this.... Or am i thinking too much....

mikemcgarry · Answer

That rule is NOT true. That's too simplistic. Whether a comma should be used or not depends on whether the modifier is vital. See these two blogs: https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/that-vs-which-on-the-gmat/ https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-gramm ... modifiers/ Vital: The old man drinking a cup of coffee is a famous writer . Non-vital: My good friend, drinking a cup of coffee , did not seem motivated to run 5K with me. In the first sentence, the phrase is vital because it is helpful in identifying the subject. If we removed this modifier, that could make the identify of the subject less clear. In the second sentence, the subject is my good friend --- no ambiguity: the modifier is descriptive, but not needed to establish identity. Does all this make sense? Mike :-)

Mission2012 · Answer

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) had long been expected to announce a reduction in output to bolster sagging oil prices, but officials of the organization just recently announced that the group will pare daily production by 1.5 million barrels by the beginning of next  year, but only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, were to trim outpu   t by a total of 500,000 barrels a day

A. year, but only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, were to trim output 
B. year, but only if the output of non-OPEC nations, which includes Norway, Mexico, and Russia, is trimmed 
C. year only if the output of non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, would be trimmed 
D. year only if non-OPEC nations, which includes Norway, Mexico, and Russia, were trimming output 
E. year only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, trim output

As per the explanation given by OG, option B and C are wrong because of passive voice in the underlined portion doesn't state who would trim the prices.

As per my understanding of the meaning, it is not necessary to know the doer of trimming. So I would not have eliminated B and C on the grounds of meaning.

Instructor, please help me understand if option B and C distort the meaning.

OA : E

egmat · Answer

Hi @Mission2012,

Thank you for articulating your question so well. Such good question posts help us identify the gaps in your understanding and that in turn helps you figure out where exactly you are going on.

Let's figure out what is happening with this question.

What is the meaning of the sentence?
Normally I would ask you to tell me the meaning of the sentence but in the essence of time let me give that to you:

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) had long been expected to announce a reduction in output to bolster sagging oil prices, but officials of the organization just recently announced that the group will pare daily production by 1.5 million barrels by the beginning of next year, but only if non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, were to trim output by a total of 500,000 barrels a day.

1: The OPEC was expected to announce reduction in output in order to increase sagging oil prices.
2: But it announced that it will reduce the production to a certain degree only if the non-OPEC nations trimmed their output as well.

So as you can see the action of OPEC nations is contingent upon the action taken by the non-OPEC nations. So clearly the action of trimming of output by a total of 500,000 barrels a day is something for which we need to explicitly know who the doer is. Just by saying that "the output of non-OPEC nations should be trimmed" does not tell us who actually will do this trimming.

I hope this explains why Choices B and C are incorrect. 
So in a nutshell, it is very important to understand what the original sentence intends to communicate and then ensure that the correct choice maintains that meaning.

Happy preparation!
Payal

Harley1980 · Answer

Hi experts/ chetan2u,

I was stuck between C and E, opted for wrong option (C) as I thought here we need subjunctive mood (If....Then clause)

Whats wrong with C. Has it been eliminated because of wordiness.??

VishalOne · Answer

Hi,

1. Is the usage of 'which' in option B and D correct?
2. In option E, doesn't 'including Norway, Mexico, and Russia' modify 'non-OPEC nations' to suggest
that Norway, Mexico and Russia are part of non-OPEC nations.

Thanks for your time!!!

egmat · Answer

Hello VishalOne , I would be glad to help you out with this query.

1. In Choices B and D, the noun modifier which modifies the preceding noun entity non-OPEC nations . The modification is correct because per the context of the sentence Norway, Mexico, and Russia are non-OPEC nations . But because which stands for plural non-OPEC nations , use of singular verb includes for the subject which is incorrect. 2. Yes, your analysis about the role of including Norway, Mexico, and Russia is correct. Hope this helps. :-)

Thanks. Shraddha

fusion327 · Answer

Regarding the  including Norway, Mexico, and Russia , I thought 'comma + verb-ing modifier' only modifies the preceding clause. Then shouldn't the modifier be modifying something other than OPEC nations since 'OPEC nations' is a noun?

EducationAisle · Answer

Hi  fusion327 , this indeed creates confusion. The rule you've mentioned is for  present participial  phrases. However,  including  is  not  a  present participial  phrase;  including  is actually a  preposition . Hence, the general rules of participial phrases do  not  apply to  including .

including  can modify the  Noun  or  Noun-Phrase  immediately before the word  including .

p.s. Our book    EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana    has a special note on  the usage of  including  . Have attached the corresponding section of the book, for your reference.

razakay · Answer

egmat

one thing that i don't get is that Option E states: year only if the output of non-OPEC nations, including Norway, Mexico, and Russia, were trim output

As per my understanding, Verb-ing if separated by a comma modifies the preceding clause or the subject of the preceding clause and if NO Comma is used then only can Verb-ing modifier modify the closest possible noun  i.e non-Opec nations  in this question

gmatman1031 · Answer

I thought (C) was an attractive answer because it doesn't demand that the non-OPEC nations trim output now or first. However, it is wrong for the following reasons:

First, although (C) and (E) have different meanings, it's not clear that one meaning is better than the other. It's just as reasonable for OPEC to demand that non-OPEC nations trim output now as it is for OPEC to demand that non-OPEC nations trim output at some point in the future. In SC questions, I often find that two answers have different meanings, but one meaning is not better than the other. Thus, an option can't be eliminated based on meaning.

Second, if the author really wanted to express that non-OPEC nations can trim output at some point in the future, then "will" would have been much better than "would". For example,
 I will trim output only if you will trim output.  -- This sounds fine.
 I will trim output only if you would trim output.  -- This is definitely not right.
The use of "would" in (C) pretty much completely eliminates it as a potential answer.

Third, if everything else is equal, active voice should be preferred over passive voice. There is already enough reason to eliminate (C), but this is still something worth considering.

Finally, (C) makes the "only if" clause parallel with its superordinate (main) clause. I don't think parallelism is intended to be a big factor for this question, but it is something worth noting.

---

As a side note, several experts have mentioned that there are rules for which verb tenses can be used in conditional clauses (more on that  here  and  here ). These rules are good to keep in mind; however, there are caveats to these rules that should also be kept in mind (more on that  here ).

BijayKru · Answer

Hi experts/ chetan2u,

I was stuck between C and E, opted for wrong option (C) as I thought here we need subjunctive mood (If....Then clause)

Whats wrong with C. Has it been eliminated because of wordiness.??

And more over if we will go with the meaning. Would we can expect in hypothetical situation. So in Option C we can't find any hypothetical situation. So C is wrong.

EducationAisle · Answer

Hi  BijayKru , C says:  only if the output of non-OPEC nations would be trimmed

This doesn't tell us  who  would trip the output.

E clearly tell us that  non-OPEC nations  trim output.

Another issue with C is the  incorrect  use of  conditional  construct ( if ). The structure in C is:

If X would happen, Y will happen.

(if the output of non-OPEC nations  would  be trimmed, the group will pare daily production)

This is a grammatically incorrect sentence. The  if portion  (in this case  if the output of non-OPEC nations would be trimmed ) can  never  have a  will/would .

p.s. Our book    EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana    discusses  Conditional constrcts , their application and examples in significant detail. If you or someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) had long been

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

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) had long been

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