With abundant natural resources, cheap labor forces, and : GMAT Sentence Correction (SC)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 25 Feb 2017, 04:30

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

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

With abundant natural resources, cheap labor forces, and

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1538
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 756 [0], given: 1

With abundant natural resources, cheap labor forces, and [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 08:16
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 2 sessions

HideShow 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.

Thanks!
If you have any questions
New!
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1430
Followers: 39

Kudos [?]: 363 [0], given: 1

Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 08:40
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.

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)
Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 838
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 08:51
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.

Thanks!

I chose B over D because the stimulus said "were" weakened
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1430
Followers: 39

Kudos [?]: 363 [0], given: 1

Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 09:28
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 http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv195.shtml which says would is for uncertainty and could is for permission/request.

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

Interesting!
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 994
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 200 [0], given: 5

Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 10:34
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.
Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 838
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 10:49
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 http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv195.shtml which says would is for uncertainty and could is for permission/request.

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.
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1430
Followers: 39

Kudos [?]: 363 [0], given: 1

Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 10:59
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
VP
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Posts: 1043
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 577 [0], given: 1

Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 11:06
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 ??
_________________

"You have to find it. No one else can find it for you." - Bjorn Borg

Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 838
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 13:54
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
SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1538
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 756 [0], given: 1

Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 14:36
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!

may be some more explanation can help me here.
thanks
Senior Manager
Joined: 31 Jul 2008
Posts: 306
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 15:06
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 ....
Manager
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Posts: 108
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 15:53
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.
SVP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1569
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 253 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

23 Oct 2008, 01:07
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.
SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1538
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 756 [0], given: 1

Show Tags

23 Oct 2008, 08:45
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.
SVP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1569
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 253 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

23 Oct 2008, 09:48
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?
Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Apr 2008
Posts: 269
Location: Motortown
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 144 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

23 Oct 2008, 10:00
B

A bit confused between 'would' in B and 'could' in D
SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1538
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 756 [0], given: 1

Show Tags

23 Oct 2008, 10:31
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.
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
16 Though once powerful political forces, labor unions have 8 21 Mar 2014, 14:58
8 Though once powerful political forces, labor unions have 8 30 Jun 2011, 05:50
Work-force 5 09 May 2011, 12:52
10 They went to Africa, a continent with abundant resources, 18 19 Sep 2010, 10:06
Though once powerful political forces, labor unions have 4 26 Aug 2009, 17:11
Display posts from previous: Sort by