Just to confirm , do i take it as a rule ,then , that if a law has been enacted , "will" is to be usedBrian@VeritasPrep wrote:Yes! Because at that point the law WILL do something:Hi bRian had this law been enacted , would the use of "will " have been justified ?
The new budget, passed yesterday by Congress, will devote twice as much funding to...
The recently-passed law will require all citizens to...
At the point that the law is definite, its results "will" be what they are. But if it's proposed, then "would" is better because it's still uncertain.
Tricky SC Grail question - Expert Request
-
mundasingh123
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2330
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
- Thanked: 56 times
- Followed by:26 members
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
-
Brian@VeritasPrep
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:23 pm
- Location: Malibu, CA
- Thanked: 716 times
- Followed by:255 members
- GMAT Score:750
Hey mundasingh,
Yes...with a caveat - it's not a 100% absolute rule because there are bound to be some logical uses of would, like:
Pundits predicted that the law would never make it through both houses of Congress, but in actuality it passed quite easily.
Here the law itself has been passed, but "would" is logical because it's a past/conditional usage.
So...in the context that we've been discussing it, you're absolutely right, but be careful and keep logic in mind when you see situations like this in the future. I'd advocate paying attention to the differences between answer choices when it comes to meaning and not only looking for what you expect to see. The GMAT is pretty slick about subtle-but-definitely-illogical meaning differences, and to me they're a lot easier to spot in context, one versus the other, than they are to anticipate well in advance.
Yes...with a caveat - it's not a 100% absolute rule because there are bound to be some logical uses of would, like:
Pundits predicted that the law would never make it through both houses of Congress, but in actuality it passed quite easily.
Here the law itself has been passed, but "would" is logical because it's a past/conditional usage.
So...in the context that we've been discussing it, you're absolutely right, but be careful and keep logic in mind when you see situations like this in the future. I'd advocate paying attention to the differences between answer choices when it comes to meaning and not only looking for what you expect to see. The GMAT is pretty slick about subtle-but-definitely-illogical meaning differences, and to me they're a lot easier to spot in context, one versus the other, than they are to anticipate well in advance.
Brian Galvin
GMAT Instructor
Chief Academic Officer
Veritas Prep
Looking for GMAT practice questions? Try out the Veritas Prep Question Bank. Learn More.
GMAT Instructor
Chief Academic Officer
Veritas Prep
Looking for GMAT practice questions? Try out the Veritas Prep Question Bank. Learn More.
-
mundasingh123
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2330
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
- Thanked: 56 times
- Followed by:26 members
Hi Brian so at the time the pundits must have predicted , " The law will never make it through ... "Pundits predicted that the law would never make it through both houses of Congress, but in actuality it passed quite easily.
Here the law itself has been passed, but "would" is logical because it's a past/conditional usage.
Since the sentence is reporting some event in the past , the future tense is changed to conditional
when we are reporting past events such as the one you have spoken about in the example above , do we never bring in issues of hypothetical situations.
What i means is "dont we use "would" because the pundits predicted that something will hold true but in fact the event doesnt hold take place .
Basically i am mixing issues of Hypothetical aspect of would with the conditional aspect of would
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
-
rishijhawar
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:24 pm
- Thanked: 1 times
Brian, i still feel the usage of will is ok as the word "proposed" takes care of the uncertainty of what would happen.
Please correct me if i am wrong.
Please correct me if i am wrong.
---------aspirant2011 wrote:Hi Brian,Brian@VeritasPrep wrote:Hey mundasingh,
Thanks for the PM! Interesting - you know...I wonder how well-written this question is in a GMAT context. Everyone's saying 'B' but my first thought on this is that "would" should be better than "will" because it's a "proposed" law, so we don't know for sure that anything WILL happen...just what WOULD happen if the law does, indeed, come to fruition. And that would eliminate B (and C).
I'd say that E, then, has an awkward meaning with "repeal AND modify" laws, since once it's repealed it's gone...there's nothing left to modify. So "OR" in A and D is preferable. I'd say that they're probably going for A...I don't even know that I'm completely against the idiom in D like so many are, but the meaning is a little off. They're not repealing these tax breaks to directly lower tax rates...that's a different step altogether. So the phrasing "so that tax rates could be lowered across the board", by introducing another verb, seems more logical with the intended meaning.
So that's my explanation for A... As with any practice problem the process is probably much more important than the result, so hopefully the logic makes sense. I know that my answer contradicts the supposed "OA" but I'm pretty confident in the process here on this question...
Request you to clarify on one thing i.e can would & could used in the same sentence????? please share the examples for such usage
I have the same doubt. Would and could in the same sentence???????
-
rishijhawar
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:24 pm
- Thanked: 1 times
Brian, i still feel the usage of will is ok as the word "proposed" takes care of the uncertainty of what would happen.
Please correct me if i am wrong.
Please correct me if i am wrong.
-
rishijhawar
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:24 pm
- Thanked: 1 times
Brian, thanks for great explanation on "so as to". However, I still have a doubt:
If i understood your explanation correctly, there must be a direct cause effect relationship to ensure correct usage of so as to.
i think this is what you meant in your example" "I put on boots (CAUSE) so as to keep my feet dry (EFFECT) while hiking.
Going by the same logic, can't we derive the following:
I repealed tax breaks (CAUSE) so as to lower taxes across the board (EFFECT).
I agree with your explanation, but just curious to make sure that I understood 100% so as to answer the usage correctly on test day.
If i understood your explanation correctly, there must be a direct cause effect relationship to ensure correct usage of so as to.
i think this is what you meant in your example" "I put on boots (CAUSE) so as to keep my feet dry (EFFECT) while hiking.
Going by the same logic, can't we derive the following:
I repealed tax breaks (CAUSE) so as to lower taxes across the board (EFFECT).
I agree with your explanation, but just curious to make sure that I understood 100% so as to answer the usage correctly on test day.
-
sahilchaudhary
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:13 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 22 times
- Followed by:7 members
- GMAT Score:540
Thanks Brian for such an awesome explanation for the question and to the queries posted by the members of BTG.
Long Live BTG!
Long Live BTG!
Sahil Chaudhary
If you find this post helpful, please take a moment to click on the "Thank" icon.
https://www.sahilchaudhary007.blocked
If you find this post helpful, please take a moment to click on the "Thank" icon.
https://www.sahilchaudhary007.blocked
