Developing nations in various parts of the world have amasse

Hi simplyjat,

This question incorporates a number is issues, the most important of which is agreement between subject and verb. Answers B and C can be eliminated right off the bat, since the "are" should be not be plural in referring to the singular "the solvency" in the original sentence. Answer D is just too awkward and wordy, and can also be eliminated. Answer E is slightly tougher, but the future tense "will be" is incorrect, since the entire sentence is in the present tense. Thus, the correct choice is A, which appropriately uses the singular verb "is" to refer to "the solvency," and uses the correct tense in a concise manner.

Hope this helps!

You mentioned Answer D is just too awkward and wordy, and can also be eliminated.
As I was confused between A and D wanted to know what it technically wrong with D that it can be eliminated right away.

Thanks in advance,
Atul

apurohit wrote:You mentioned Answer D is just too awkward and wordy, and can also be eliminated.
As I was confused between A and D wanted to know what it technically wrong with D that it can be eliminated right away.

Thanks in advance,
Atul

(d) treats the issue as though it's a hypothetical - in those situations, we need the subjunctive tense.

So, for (d) to be correct, it would have to read "if there WERE a repudiation ...".

Stuart Kovinsky wrote:
(d) treats the issue as though it's a hypothetical - in those situations, we need the subjunctive tense.

So, for (d) to be correct, it would have to read "if there WERE a repudiation ...".

I believe E is incorrect for the same reason. E uses the simple future when in fact the subjunctive is required.

Can Someone please explain the meaning of this sentence. I couldnt get the idea of the sentence.....

IMO A

what happened to the famous 'if X <present tense>, will be' rule?

based on the rule, don't you think option A should read:

Developing nations in various parts of the world have amassed $700 billion in debts; at stake, should a significant number of these debts be repudiated, will be the solvency of some of the world’s largest multinational banks

the reason that i did not use the should was because i thought that we could not use should for probability but only for the obligation kinda meaning

what is the rule of if construction is it that should, would and will should not be a part of the if X than Y statement

Please clarify

"If X, then Y" is hypothetical structure. I think using meaning is the best way to distinguish in this sentence.