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

Redeem

Tense Problem

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

Tense Problem

by mundasingh123 » Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:12 am
Under a provision of the Constitution that was never applied. Congress has been required to call a convention for considering possible amendments to the document when formally asked to do it by the legislatures of two-thirds of the states.
(A) was never applied, Congress has been required to call a convention for considering possible
amendments to the document when formally asked to do it
(B) was never applied, there has been a requirement that Congress call a convention for consideration of possible amendments to the document when asked to do it formally
(C) was never applied, whereby Congress is required to call a convention for considering possible
amendments to the document when asked to do it formally
(D) has never been applied, whereby Congress is required to call a convention to consider possible
amendments to the document when formally asked to do so
(E) has never been applied. Congress is required to call a convention to consider possible amendments to the document when formally asked to do so

OG Explanation :
Choices A, B, C, and D contain tense errors (the use of was never applied with has been required in A, for example)
whats wrong with using was never applied with has been required in A
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:39 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 39 times
Followed by:22 members
GMAT Score:780

by SticklorForDetails » Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:47 am
As is often the case when you bring up fascinatingly weird questions, mundasingh, the reason is more logic than grammar. We are told the provision was never applied in the past -- therefore, we can't use any tense that implies that Congress has ever actually been held to this requirement. They haven't been. They weren't in the past or at any time between the past and present.

The correct answer uses the present perfect for the non-application of the provision, so that it wasn't applied at any point in the past and still isn't now, and then the present tense to remind us of what the provision actually (present tense) does require of Congress, even though in the past it has never been applied.
Experienced tutors, customized study plans, personalized service.

www.GothamTutors.com/adam.html
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

by mundasingh123 » Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:56 pm
SticklorForDetails wrote:As is often the case when you bring up fascinatingly weird questions, mundasingh, the reason is more logic than grammar. We are told the provision was never applied in the past -- therefore, we can't use any tense that implies that Congress has ever actually been held to this requirement. They haven't been. They weren't in the past or at any time between the past and present.

The correct answer uses the present perfect for the non-application of the provision, so that it wasn't applied at any point in the past and still isn't now, and then the present tense to remind us of what the provision actually (present tense) does require of Congress, even though in the past it has never been applied.
Thanks Sticklor for pointing this out . But thats because i am very skeptical about the interpretations that i arrive at when i go through SCs that test tense .
I am unable to put the events on a timeline . But i did find the compliment amusing .:)

I have 1 final doubt regarding this question sticklor .Option C says
(C) was never applied, whereby Congress is required to call a convention for considering possible
If we were to remove "whereby"
we would get
(C) was never applied, Congress is required to call a convention for considering possible
Earlier the presence of "whereby " was causing a fragment
would C be correct now that the sentence is no longer a fragment .
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 9:42 pm
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:2 members

by garima99 » Fri Aug 05, 2011 3:36 am
mundasingh123 wrote:Under a provision of the Constitution that was never applied. Congress has been required to call a convention for considering possible amendments to the document when formally asked to do it by the legislatures of two-thirds of the states.
(A) was never applied, Congress has been required to call a convention for considering possible
amendments to the document when formally asked to do it
(B) was never applied, there has been a requirement that Congress call a convention for consideration of possible amendments to the document when asked to do it formally
(C) was never applied, whereby Congress is required to call a convention for considering possible
amendments to the document when asked to do it formally
(D) has never been applied, whereby Congress is required to call a convention to consider possible
amendments to the document when formally asked to do so
(E) has never been applied. Congress is required to call a convention to consider possible amendments to the document when formally asked to do so

OG Explanation :
Choices A, B, C, and D contain tense errors (the use of was never applied with has been required in A, for example)
whats wrong with using was never applied with has been required in A
to consider is correct so we are left with only D and E...
Top
Post new topic Locked
• Page 1 of 1