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

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

job seekers!

Expert replies
by gmat_perfect » Mon Aug 02, 2010 10:38 am
Until quite recently, American economists have assumed that the unemployment rate being four per cent, there is a rough balance among jobs and job seekers.

(A) the unemployment rate being four per cent, there is a rough balance among jobs and job seekers
(B) should the unemployment rate be four per cent, there is a rough balance among jobs and job seekers
(C) were the unemployment rate four per cent, there is a rough balance between jobs and job seekers
(D) if the unemployment rate is four per cent, there is a rough balance between jobs and job seekers
(E) there is a rough balance among jobs and job seekers when there is an unemployment rate that is four per cent


I have come to the answer.

But I am not convinced with the explanation of the option C.

Would any one say why C is wrong?

I have assumed that were in C is wrong. Is there any other way to eliminate C?

Thanks.
Join the discussion
Source: — Sentence Correction |

by uwhusky » Mon Aug 02, 2010 10:41 am
nope.
Last edited by uwhusky on Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Yep.
Join the discussion

by bichoo » Mon Aug 02, 2010 11:14 am
IMO D
Join the discussion

by tomada » Mon Aug 02, 2010 11:46 am
You can eliminate choices A, B, and E since each of these includes the word "among" to describe the relationship between the jobs and job seekers. "Among" should only be used when there are more than 2 things/people but, in this case, there are only two items: "jobs" (1) and "job seekers" (2).
I'm really old, but I'll never be too old to become more educated.
Join the discussion

by selfmade » Mon Aug 02, 2010 12:27 pm
As said in earlier post - A, B and E can be eliminated since it uses "Among" to compare two items ( job and jobseekers).

Its a very close call between C and D . However the sentence starts with - Until very recently whoch shows the action in the past, so C is more appropriate. D starts with "If" and presents hypothetical situation, so it can be eliminated as well.

Answer should be C.
Join the discussion

by uwhusky » Mon Aug 02, 2010 12:41 pm
yep.
Last edited by uwhusky on Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Yep.
Join the discussion

by tomada » Mon Aug 02, 2010 12:43 pm
IMO D.
I'm really old, but I'll never be too old to become more educated.
Join the discussion

by reply2spg » Mon Aug 02, 2010 9:07 pm
'were' is not correct in C

IMO D
gmat_perfect wrote:Until quite recently, American economists have assumed that the unemployment rate being four per cent, there is a rough balance among jobs and job seekers.

(A) the unemployment rate being four per cent, there is a rough balance among jobs and job seekers
(B) should the unemployment rate be four per cent, there is a rough balance among jobs and job seekers
(C) were the unemployment rate four per cent, there is a rough balance between jobs and job seekers
(D) if the unemployment rate is four per cent, there is a rough balance between jobs and job seekers
(E) there is a rough balance among jobs and job seekers when there is an unemployment rate that is four per cent


I have come to the answer.

But I am not convinced with the explanation of the option C.

Would any one say why C is wrong?

I have assumed that were in C is wrong. Is there any other way to eliminate C?

Thanks.
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)
Join the discussion

by selango » Mon Aug 02, 2010 9:14 pm
IMO D.

"Assumed that if" is correct.
--Anand--
Join the discussion

by neha.patni » Tue Aug 03, 2010 3:41 am
gmat_perfect wrote:Until quite recently, American economists have assumed that the unemployment rate being four per cent, there is a rough balance among jobs and job seekers.

(A) the unemployment rate being four per cent, there is a rough balance among jobs and job seekers
(B) should the unemployment rate be four per cent, there is a rough balance among jobs and job seekers
(C) were the unemployment rate four per cent, there is a rough balance between jobs and job seekers
(D) if the unemployment rate is four per cent, there is a rough balance between jobs and job seekers
(E) there is a rough balance among jobs and job seekers when there is an unemployment rate that is four per cent


I have come to the answer.

But I am not convinced with the explanation of the option C.

Would any one say why C is wrong?

I have assumed that were in C is wrong. Is there any other way to eliminate C?

Thanks.

IMO D
Join the discussion

by gmat_perfect » Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:16 am
tomada wrote:IMO D.
Would you please explain why answer choice C is incorrect?

Thanks.
Join the discussion

by reply2spg » Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:31 am
is "Assumed that if" idiom?
selango wrote:IMO D.

"Assumed that if" is correct.
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)
Join the discussion

by FightWithGMAT » Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:26 am
gmat_perfect wrote:
tomada wrote:IMO D.
Would you please explain why answer choice C is incorrect?

Thanks.
"were" is coupled with "would". That is why C is wrong.

In conditional clause if past form of TO BE is used, associated clause must have "would".
Join the discussion

by e-GMAT » Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:43 am
gmat_perfect wrote:
tomada wrote:IMO D.
Would you please explain why answer choice C is incorrect?

Thanks.
I will take a stab at explaining why Choice C is incorrect.

Lets read the original sentence and understand the intent:

"Until quite recently, American economists have assumed that the unemployment rate being four per cent, there is a rough balance among jobs and job seekers."

The sentence presents an assumption made by the American economists. The assumption is presented in form of a condition which states that if the unemployment rate is 4%, then there is rough balance between jobs and job seekers.

Now lets concentrate on choice C

"were the unemployment rate four per cent, there is a rough balance between jobs and job seekers"
In this construction, use of "were" gives an impression that this is a hypothetical condition. And this by itself changes the intent of the sentence. The "unemployment rate of 4%" is not a hypothetical condition per the original sentence.

Let me know if this makes sense.
Join the discussion

by tomada » Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:48 am
Please bear with me if my reasoning is incorrect, but I eliminated 'C' because I thought that "were" (plural) was inconsistent with "rate" (singular).
I'm really old, but I'll never be too old to become more educated.
Join the discussion