NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 26 Apr 2024, 07:32 It is currently 26 Apr 2024, 07:32
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

Close
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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

With abundant natural resources, cheap labor forces, and

User avatar
tarek99
Director
Director
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 771
Own Kudos [?]: 4719 [0]
Given Kudos: 1
 Q49  V35
Send PM
With abundant natural resources, cheap labor forces, and [#permalink] New post   22 Oct 2008, 09:16
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 2 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
With abundant natural resources, cheap labor forces, and developing markets, Central and South America were of significant economic interest to the United States because government officials feared that if they did not establish a strong relationship, the economic tie were weakened by goods from the Far East.

(A) if they did not establish a strong relationship strong relationship, the economic tie were weakened by goods from the Far East

(B) without a strong relationship, the economic tie would be weakened by goods from the Far East

(C) the economic tie was weakened by goods from the Far East if they did not establish a strong relationship

(D) without a strong relationship, the economic tie could be weakened by goods from the Far East

(E) if they would not establish a strong relationship, the economic tie is weakened by goods from the Far East.




Please explain your answer and PLEASE explain why the other answer choices are wrong.
Thanks!



Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Sentence Correction (EA only) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
User avatar
icandy
Director
Director
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 623
Own Kudos [?]: 1953 [0]
Given Kudos: 1
 Q49  V41
Send PM
Re: With abundant natural resources, cheap labor forces, and [#permalink] New post   22 Oct 2008, 09:40
tarek99 wrote:
With abundant natural resources, cheap labor forces, and developing markets, Central and South America were of significant economic interest to the United States because government officials feared that if they did not establish a strong relationship, the economic tie were weakened by goods from the Far East.

(A) if they did not establish a strong relationship strong relationship, the economic tie were weakened by goods from the Far East

if clause in past tense, conditional clause needs would/could + base verb

(B) without a strong relationship, the economic tie would be weakened by goods from the Far East

(C) the economic tie was weakened by goods from the Far East if they did not establish a strong relationship

Same reason as A
(D) without a strong relationship, the economic tie could be weakened by goods from the Far East

(E) if they would not establish a strong relationship, the economic tie is weakened by goods from the Far East.

Would does not appear in if clause.


Please explain your answer and PLEASE explain why the other answer choices are wrong.
Thanks!


Now I am left with B & D. The only difference is would/could. I am choosing D because we need to show logical possibility (Hint: word feared)
User avatar
bigtreezl
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 369
Own Kudos [?]: 186 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: With abundant natural resources, cheap labor forces, and [#permalink] New post   22 Oct 2008, 09:51
tarek99 wrote:
With abundant natural resources, cheap labor forces, and developing markets, Central and South America were of significant economic interest to the United States because government officials feared that if they did not establish a strong relationship, the economic tie were weakened by goods from the Far East.

(A) if they did not establish a strong relationship strong relationship, the economic tie were weakened by goods from the Far East

(B) without a strong relationship, the economic tie would be weakened by goods from the Far East. At first I wanted to see "would have been", but I realized that the economic ties would be weakened some time in the future if strong relationships werent established in the past. I think B is correct
(C) the economic tie was weakened by goods from the Far East if they did not establish a strong relationship "who is they"

(D) without a strong relationship, the economic tie could be weakened by goods from the Far East

(E) if they would not establish a strong relationship, the economic tie is weakened by goods from the Far East.




Please explain your answer and PLEASE explain why the other answer choices are wrong.
Thanks!



I chose B over D because the stimulus said "were" weakened
User avatar
icandy
Director
Director
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 623
Own Kudos [?]: 1953 [0]
Given Kudos: 1
 Q49  V41
Send PM
Re: With abundant natural resources, cheap labor forces, and [#permalink] New post   22 Oct 2008, 10:28
bigtreezl wrote:


I chose B over D because the stimulus said "were" weakened



We have to make the correction based on the non underlined part, The underlined part is already wrong and adds little value in correcting itself. The non underlined part dictates the flow of the rest of the sentence as we cannot change it.

Now coming back to the Q, I remember from MGMAT SC book that will shows certainty and would shows uncertainty. I went back and looked into the book, could is also listed as the word that can show uncertainty

Googling, I found this BBC link https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv195.shtml which says would is for uncertainty and could is for permission/request.

then the same link says

Would have indicates certainty that he would have won if he had tried harder, could have indicates that it is a possibility.

Interesting!
User avatar
bigfernhead
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 524
Own Kudos [?]: 1850 [0]
Given Kudos: 5
GMAT 2: 670
Send PM
Re: With abundant natural resources, cheap labor forces, and [#permalink] New post   22 Oct 2008, 11:34
Toss up for me between B and D.

I went with B - would (certainty) I believe is what the author is trying to express.

Though, I do question the source of the Q, because both are grammatically correct.
User avatar
bigtreezl
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 369
Own Kudos [?]: 186 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: With abundant natural resources, cheap labor forces, and [#permalink] New post   22 Oct 2008, 11:49
icandy wrote:
bigtreezl wrote:


I chose B over D because the stimulus said "were" weakened



We have to make the correction based on the non underlined part, The underlined part is already wrong and adds little value in correcting itself. The non underlined part dictates the flow of the rest of the sentence as we cannot change it.

Now coming back to the Q, I remember from MGMAT SC book that will shows certainty and would shows uncertainty. I went back and looked into the book, could is also listed as the word that can show uncertainty

Googling, I found this BBC link https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv195.shtml which says would is for uncertainty and could is for permission/request.

then the same link says

Would have indicates certainty that he would have won if he had tried harder, could have indicates that it is a possibility.

Interesting!


"were" of course is incorrect in the stimulus, but it is implying something factual, where as "could be" is not factual. "could be" changes the meaning.
User avatar
icandy
Director
Director
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 623
Own Kudos [?]: 1953 [0]
Given Kudos: 1
 Q49  V41
Send PM
Re: With abundant natural resources, cheap labor forces, and [#permalink] New post   22 Oct 2008, 11:59
bigtreezl wrote:

"were" of course is incorrect in the stimulus, but it is implying something factual, where as "could be" is not factual. "could be" changes the meaning.


I still don't get it. You are saying usage of were is wrong but it is implying is some thing factual? How can a wrong usage imply something factual? There is nothing factual here. Here we are clearly talking about a future issue and we are talking about a fear or uncertainty. As BFH said, grammatically both seem to be correct but probably would is correct usage as uncertainty is involved. The more I think, the more I feel that my assessment of logical possibility is wrong
User avatar
amitdgr
Director
Director
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Posts: 538
Own Kudos [?]: 2730 [0]
Given Kudos: 1
Send PM
Re: With abundant natural resources, cheap labor forces, and [#permalink] New post   22 Oct 2008, 12:06
tarek ... what is the source ???

I had tough time choosing between B and D. In the end I guessed B. I was not sure of the logical difference of would and could.

What is the OA ??
User avatar
bigtreezl
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 369
Own Kudos [?]: 186 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: With abundant natural resources, cheap labor forces, and [#permalink] New post   22 Oct 2008, 14:54
icandy wrote:
bigtreezl wrote:

"were" of course is incorrect in the stimulus, but it is implying something factual, where as "could be" is not factual. "could be" changes the meaning.


I still don't get it. You are saying usage of were is wrong but it is implying is some thing factual? How can a wrong usage imply something factual? There is nothing factual here. Here we are clearly talking about a future issue and we are talking about a fear or uncertainty. As BFH said, grammatically both seem to be correct but probably would is correct usage as uncertainty is involved. The more I think, the more I feel that my assessment of logical possibility is wrong


from dictionary.com

would
(used in place of will, to make a statement or form a question less direct or blunt): That would scarcely be fair. Would you be so kind?



I am just saying that "were" is the plural past tense of the verb "to be". "will" is the future tense of the verb to be.

in using could instead of would it is like changing "I was at the store" to "I could have been at the store"
or "if you had come by my house and I wasn't home, I would have been at the store" to "if you came by my house and I wasnt home, I could have been at the store"

would suggests something definite, factual
User avatar
tarek99
Director
Director
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 771
Own Kudos [?]: 4719 [0]
Given Kudos: 1
 Q49  V35
Send PM
Re: With abundant natural resources, cheap labor forces, and [#permalink] New post   22 Oct 2008, 15:36
the OA is B. The source of this question is bellcurves.com

I'm still trying to figure out the exact difference between "would" and "could." From what i know, both express uncertainty. However, "would" implies decision taking, whereas "could" expresses ability. But based on that logic, I chose D, which is wrong! :evil:

may be some more explanation can help me here.
thanks
User avatar
stallone
Manager
Manager
Joined: 31 Jul 2008
Posts: 118
Own Kudos [?]: 157 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: With abundant natural resources, cheap labor forces, and [#permalink] New post   22 Oct 2008, 16:06
i was muddled between B and D as well.

But here is my logic to choose B over D :

would over could :

here the the whole sentence is in the past tense :

B says : without a strong relationship, the economic tie would be weakened by goods from the Far East

since weakened is also a past form probably we will need to show the things happening at different time frames esp keeping in mind that
the rest of the sentence (not underlined) ends with "feared" . Now some body will fear of something "to happen" ; that is something in the future
But since weakened is also in past tense ... we will need "would" here to indicate different time frames ....
User avatar
nganle08
Manager
Manager
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Posts: 53
Own Kudos [?]: 234 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: With abundant natural resources, cheap labor forces, and [#permalink] New post   22 Oct 2008, 16:53
icandy wrote:
bigtreezl wrote:

"were" of course is incorrect in the stimulus, but it is implying something factual, where as "could be" is not factual. "could be" changes the meaning.


I still don't get it. You are saying usage of were is wrong but it is implying is some thing factual? How can a wrong usage imply something factual? There is nothing factual here. Here we are clearly talking about a future issue and we are talking about a fear or uncertainty. As BFH said, grammatically both seem to be correct but probably would is correct usage as uncertainty is involved. The more I think, the more I feel that my assessment of logical possibility is wrong


I think "were" is used to express uncertainty or unreality when "were" appears in the IF clause, not the main clause.
For example: If I WERE rich, I would donate money to rebuild my school.

In the answer choice, "were" appears in the main clause; and because it has to go with the singular subject "the economic tie", it is wrong.
User avatar
scthakur
Director
Director
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 614
Own Kudos [?]: 444 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: With abundant natural resources, cheap labor forces, and [#permalink] New post   23 Oct 2008, 02:07
My reason for choosing B is that in a subjunctive clause, I have never seen "could". For example,
If I ate there, I would develop stomach ache.
User avatar
tarek99
Director
Director
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 771
Own Kudos [?]: 4719 [0]
Given Kudos: 1
 Q49  V35
Send PM
Re: With abundant natural resources, cheap labor forces, and [#permalink] New post   23 Oct 2008, 09:45
scthakur wrote:
My reason for choosing B is that in a subjunctive clause, I have never seen "could". For example,
If I ate there, I would develop stomach ache.


I will have to disagree with you. With unreal conditionals, you are allowed to use would, could, and might.
User avatar
scthakur
Director
Director
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 614
Own Kudos [?]: 444 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: With abundant natural resources, cheap labor forces, and [#permalink] New post   23 Oct 2008, 10:48
tarek99 wrote:
scthakur wrote:
My reason for choosing B is that in a subjunctive clause, I have never seen "could". For example,
If I ate there, I would develop stomach ache.


I will have to disagree with you. With unreal conditionals, you are allowed to use would, could, and might.


Then, this is my learning. Could you please throw some examples?
User avatar
LiveStronger
Manager
Manager
Joined: 21 Apr 2008
Posts: 114
Own Kudos [?]: 294 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Location: Motortown
Send PM
Re: With abundant natural resources, cheap labor forces, and [#permalink] New post   23 Oct 2008, 11:00
B

A bit confused between 'would' in B and 'could' in D :roll:
User avatar
tarek99
Director
Director
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 771
Own Kudos [?]: 4719 [0]
Given Kudos: 1
 Q49  V35
Send PM
Re: With abundant natural resources, cheap labor forces, and [#permalink] New post   23 Oct 2008, 11:31
scthakur wrote:
tarek99 wrote:
scthakur wrote:
My reason for choosing B is that in a subjunctive clause, I have never seen "could". For example,
If I ate there, I would develop stomach ache.


I will have to disagree with you. With unreal conditionals, you are allowed to use would, could, and might.


Then, this is my learning. Could you please throw some examples?


ok,

1) If I were rich, I could travel more often.

2) If you kissed me, I would enjoy it.

3) If you apologized, I might forgive you.


As for the real conditionals, you are allowed to use will, can, may, and must because they imply future.



Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Sentence Correction (EA only) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: With abundant natural resources, cheap labor forces, and [#permalink]
23 Oct 2008, 11:31
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6921 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
MikeScarn
Current Student
278 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions