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

Redeem
TTP OnDemand GMAT Video Course
Featured Course

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.

  • 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
  • 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
  • 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
  • 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
  • 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
  • TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
  • 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
  • OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
  • Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
  • MBA Admissions Consulting now available
  • 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
  • 200,000+ students served
  • 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★ 5.0 (559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start then $127/mo
Start Free 5-Day Trial Read 559 Reviews →

A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling_OG

Expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2014 4:00 amFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 4 times
by conquistador » Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:14 am
A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers cannot be laid off if they have been given reason to believe that their jobs will be safe, provided that their performance remains satisfactory.

(A) if they have been given reason to believe that their jobs will
(B) if they are given reason for believing that their jobs would still
(C) having been given reason for believing that their jobs would
(D) having been given reason to believe their jobs to
(E) given reason to believe that their jobs will still

can someone explain why B is wrong.
Is it correct to use present perfect tense for "given reason"?
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Sentence Correction |
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1035
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:13 amFollowed by: 365 members
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Thanked: 474 times

by VivianKerr » Wed Oct 28, 2015 5:40 pm
Hi,

The verb "are given" is confusing in terms of Meaning.

Sentence: A decision HAS QUALIFIED a 1998 ruling that workers...if they HAVE BEEN GIVEN reason to believe that their jobs WILL be safe...

The workers want reason to believe their jobs WILL be safe. It's a guarantee. Why would they want reason to believe their jobs WOULD be safe? Also, since we have the work "if" preceding it, we already know this is a hypothetical, so the word "would" is redundant.

Also, notice the choice between the participle "believing" and the infinitive "to believe." When there's a 2nd verb following on the heels of a 1st verb, the GMAT almost always prefers the infinitive form over the participle form.

The answer has to be A.
Vivian Kerr
GMAT Rockstar, Tutor
https://www.GMATrockstar.com
https://www.yelp.com/biz/gmat-rockstar-los-angeles

Former Kaplan and Grockit instructor, freelance GMAT content creator, now offering affordable, effective, Skype-tutoring for the GMAT at $150/hr. Contact: [email protected]

Thank you for all the "thanks" and "follows"! :-)
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:26 amFollowed by: 140 members
Location: https://martymurraycoaching.com/
Thanked: 955 times
GMAT Score:800

by MartyMurray » Sun Nov 01, 2015 7:32 pm
The sentence created using B does not make sense.

The court decision says that workers cannot be laid off if something. What is that something?

The sentence created using B basically seems to convey that that something is that they are given reason to believe that their jobs are safe. So let's get this straight. They can't be laid off if AT THE SAME TIME they are given reason to believe that their jobs are safe? That's what the present tense are given conveys, and that does not make sense.

Additionally, B does not make sense because the conditional would is used, but no condition for what would happen is mentioned. In other words, their jobs would still be safe if what? The answer to that question is not provided. If anything the sentence created using B seems to nonsensically convey that the workers cannot be laid off if they are given reason to believe that their jobs would still be safe even though they are being laid off.

What does make sense is, as the sentence created A conveys, that they cannot be laid off if ON AN ONGOING BASIS they have been given reason to believe that their jobs will be safe.

The present participle have been given makes sense, in that what is being conveyed is that on an ongoing basis the workers have been given reason to believe that their jobs will be safe.

So A is the best answer.
Marty Murray
Perfect Scoring Tutor With Over a Decade of Experience
MartyMurrayCoaching.com
Contact me at [email protected] for a free consultation.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2095
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:22 pmFollowed by: 247 members
Thanked: 1443 times

by ceilidh.erickson » Tue Nov 03, 2015 7:29 pm
Additionally, the correct idiomatic expression is "reason to believe" rather than "reason for believing."
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Locked
• Page 1 of 1