BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

MGMAT CAT SC ...Would vs. Will [700+]

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:44 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

MGMAT CAT SC ...Would vs. Will [700+]

by voodoo_child » Sun Jun 12, 2011 4:27 pm
State lawmakers are considering a law allowing children of divorced parents as young as seven to choose the parent with whom they will live, which will likely dissuade those parents from disciplining or punishing their children.


allowing children of divorced parents as young as seven to choose the parent with whom they will live, which will likely dissuade those parents


that would allow children as young as seven whose parents are divorced to choose the parent with whom they will live, a policy that would likely dissuade those parents


that would allow children of divorced parents as young as seven to choose the parent that they will live with, a policy that will likely dissuade their parents


allowing children as young as seven whose parents are divorced to choose the parent who they will live with, likely dissuading those parents


that will allow children as young as seven with divorced parents to choose which parent with whom to live, a policy likely dissuading their parents


From what i understand, if the sentence's main clause is in present tense (present progressive in the above sentence), the dependent clause SHOULD BE a conditional. So, my guess is that "will" should be the right tense. I am not able to understand the difference between "will" and "would"... :(

Can anyone pls explain why "would" is the correct tense here ?

Thanks
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:27 am
Thanked: 1 times

by abhishek.pati » Sun Jun 12, 2011 8:07 pm
IMO B
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 11:16 am
Thanked: 77 times
Followed by:49 members

by atulmangal » Sun Jun 12, 2011 10:56 pm
IMO B
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 am
Thanked: 88 times
Followed by:13 members

by aspirant2011 » Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:26 am
State lawmakers are considering a law allowing children of divorced parents as young as seven to choose the parent with whom they will live, which will likely dissuade those parents from disciplining or punishing their children.

allowing children of divorced parents as young as seven to choose the parent with whom they will live, which will likely dissuade those parents

that would allow children as young as seven whose parents are divorced to choose the parent with whom they will live, a policy that would likely dissuade those parents

that would allow children of divorced parents as young as seven to choose the parent that they will live with, a policy that will likely dissuade their parents ----> should have been near to children

allowing children as young as seven whose parents are divorced to choose the parent who they will live with, likely dissuading those parents

that will allow children as young as seven with divorced parents to choose which parent with whom to live, a policy likely dissuading their parents
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 6:06 am
Location: Cambridge, MA
Thanked: 192 times
Followed by:121 members
GMAT Score:780

by Ashley@VeritasPrep » Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:40 am
voodoo_child wrote:State lawmakers are considering a law allowing children of divorced parents as young as seven to choose the parent with whom they will live, which will likely dissuade those parents from disciplining or punishing their children.


allowing children of divorced parents as young as seven to choose the parent with whom they will live, which will likely dissuade those parents


that would allow children as young as seven whose parents are divorced to choose the parent with whom they will live, a policy that would likely dissuade those parents


that would allow children of divorced parents as young as seven to choose the parent that they will live with, a policy that will likely dissuade their parents


allowing children as young as seven whose parents are divorced to choose the parent who they will live with, likely dissuading those parents


that will allow children as young as seven with divorced parents to choose which parent with whom to live, a policy likely dissuading their parents


From what i understand, if the sentence's main clause is in present tense (present progressive in the above sentence), the dependent clause SHOULD BE a conditional. So, my guess is that "will" should be the right tense. I am not able to understand the difference between "will" and "would"... :(

Can anyone pls explain why "would" is the correct tense here ?

Thanks
Hey Voodoo,

You're right that we want a conditional here, as you say, and that means we want "would," not "will." "Would" have the conditional built right into it, whereas "will" will only appear in a conditional if you use an "if" at some other point in the sentence to specify the condition.

One way to look at it is like this:

If I'm going to use "will" or "shall" or "can," I need to indicate the conditional through an "if" elsewhere in the sentence. Alternatively, I can use "would" or "should" or "could" and have the conditional already embedded in the verb.

The law would allow X = If passed, the law will allow X.
You could borrow money from me = If you want to, you can borrow money from your parents.
You should receive the letter by Tuesday = [/b]If all goes well, you shall receive the letter by Tuesday. (This one is a little weird because we don't generally say "shall" these days, but it's where "should" comes from.)

Since the law is only under consideration, we can't say for sure that it "will" do anything... only that *if passed*, it WOULD...
Ashley Newman-Owens
GMAT Instructor
Veritas Prep

Post helpful? Mosey your cursor on over to that Thank button and click, please! I will bake you an imaginary cake.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:44 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by voodoo_child » Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:56 am
I am very sorry, Ashley. There was a typo in my post :(

"From what i understand, if the sentence's main clause is in present tense (present progressive in the above sentence), the dependent clause SHOULD BE a conditional IN FUTURE TENSE. So, my guess is that "will" should be the right tense. I am not able to understand the difference between "will" and "would".

I am such a goofball :( Let me read through your post and I will get back to you if I have any question.

Thanks
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:44 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by voodoo_child » Tue Jun 14, 2011 7:53 am
Hey Ashley,
I understood your reply. I am a bit confused because i thought that if we talk about future in the past, we should use conditional. If we talk about future in the present, we should use present tense.

e.g. If I went to ToysRUs, I would buy a toy for my nephew.
OR
If I go to ToysRUs today, I will buy a toy for my nephew.

In this sentence, we are talking about conditional in the present tense. Can you please explain this to me ?

thanks
Voodoo Child
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 6:06 am
Location: Cambridge, MA
Thanked: 192 times
Followed by:121 members
GMAT Score:780

by Ashley@VeritasPrep » Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:28 am
voodoo_child wrote:Hey Ashley,
I understood your reply. I am a bit confused because i thought that if we talk about future in the past, we should use conditional. If we talk about future in the present, we should use present tense.

e.g. If I went to ToysRUs, I would buy a toy for my nephew.
OR
If I go to ToysRUs today, I will buy a toy for my nephew.

In this sentence, we are talking about conditional in the present tense. Can you please explain this to me ?

thanks
Voodoo Child
You're exactly right with all this above, but in our lawmaker sentence, we don't have the word "if" showing up as we do in your examples above. If we had the "if," we would follow the model you explain, but the only way to express the concept of the conditional if you're going to leave the "if" out, as the lawmaker sentence does, is to stick with the "would." "Will" with no "if" makes it seem as though something is definitely going to happen.
Ashley Newman-Owens
GMAT Instructor
Veritas Prep

Post helpful? Mosey your cursor on over to that Thank button and click, please! I will bake you an imaginary cake.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:24 am
Thanked: 105 times
Followed by:14 members

by vikram4689 » Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:39 am
HI Ashley,

Ill summarize the usage usage that:
In IF-THEN construction we use
WILL for Present Tense
WOULD for Past Tense

For without IF-THEN sentences we ALWAYS use WOULD because WOULD has a built-in conditional

Now few Ques.
1. Does usage for would(without if-then) works irrespective of tense of sentence. In present case we have Present Tense, lets say this sentence were in Past Tense, would we still use "would"

2. Following sentences does not use IF-THEN construction but they use WILL instead of WOULD:
Reports predict that economy will grow. (as per our rule should not we use would)
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button ;)
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 6:06 am
Location: Cambridge, MA
Thanked: 192 times
Followed by:121 members
GMAT Score:780

by Ashley@VeritasPrep » Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:01 am
vikram4689 wrote:HI Ashley,

Ill summarize the usage usage that:
In IF-THEN construction we use
WILL for Present Tense
WOULD for Past Tense
Be a bit careful here -- the deciding factor here is not really the tense, but rather whether the specified condition is possible/factual (in which case we use a regular indicative verb, which sometimes involves a "will") or counterfactual (in which case we use a conditional "would").

Here are a few examples that show that tense is not the deciding factor:

If his flight took off on time, he will land at 10 a.m. tomorrow. (His flight may very well have taken off on time... "took off" is in regular past tense, "will land" is in regular future tense.)

If his flight is taking off right now, he will land at 10 a.m. tomorrow. (His flight may very well be taking off right now... "is taking off" is in present progressive, "will land" is in regular future tense.)

If his flight takes off on time this evening, he will land at 10 a.m. tomorrow. (His flight may very well take off when it is supposed to this evening, but I don't know yet whether or not it will.)

If his flight took off on time last night, he landed at 10 a.m. this morning. (In this sentence, clearly there is no "will" nor any "would"... it's the fact that his flight MAY HAVE taken off on time that means this whole sentence stays in the indicative (as did all the sentences above) and I don't do anything special with the verbs. Here the landing that may have occurred at 10 a.m. is in the past, so I just use the regular past tense "landed.")

If his flight took off on time, he is landing right now. (Same reasoning here as with previous sentence, only here the possible landing is occurring right now.)

Now, in contrast, the "would" shows up when I present a condition I KNOW to be COUNTERFACTUAL, and the other verb in the sentence (the verb in the counterfactual condition) becomes subjunctive.

So, if I know that his flight already FAILED to take off on time (in the past), I say:

If his flight HAD TAKEN OFF on time, he WOULD have landed at 10 a.m. this morning (but his flight DID NOT take off on time, so he DID NOT land at 10 a.m.).

And, if I am talking about counterfactual conditions in the present -- here, if I know that his flight is supposed to be taking off as we speak but that it ISN'T doing so -- I say:

If his flight were taking off right now, he WOULD land at 10 a.m. tomorrow (but it ISN'T taking off right now, so he WILL NOT land then).

If it were not raining, we would have a picnic (means but it IS raining, so we will not have a picnic).

If I went to Toys R Us, I would buy my nephew a toy (I'm still talking about the present; I'm just saying that I never DO go to Toys R Us, so I DO NOT buy my nephew toys).
vikram4689 wrote: For without IF-THEN sentences we ALWAYS use WOULD because WOULD has a built-in conditional
Well--almost. You use "would" if the sentence has an implied conditional and no "if" to take care of it. In the sentence above about the bill lawmakers are considering, that bill will only have its effect IF it's passed, i.e. on CONDITION that it's passed -- that's just logically true of bills in general -- and we don't know yet whether it will pass since lawmakers are just now considering it. So we need to either (a) use an "if" or (b) use a "would" to suggest that an "if" is implied. (And if we had the "if passed" in there, we'd use "will" instead of "would," since the passage of the bill would still be possible, not counterfactual.)

But in your sentence, "Reports predict that the economy will grow," there's no condition implied -- reports just predict that the economy will grow, period, no matter what. This would be different: "Reports predict that the economy would grow if people were not afraid to spend money." (There, we'd be using a counterfactual construction, so we would indeed need the "would.") This would also be different: "Reports predict that the economy will grow if people start spending money more freely." (There, we'd be using a still-possible condition and normal verbs to accompany it.) But since there is no CONDITION (implied or explicit) in "Reports predict that the economy will grow," there's no call for us to an "if" OR a "would" -- we don't need either.
Ashley Newman-Owens
GMAT Instructor
Veritas Prep

Post helpful? Mosey your cursor on over to that Thank button and click, please! I will bake you an imaginary cake.
Top
Post new topic Locked
• Page 1 of 1