Explain

[src_saurav]

Judge Bonham denied a motion to allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day instead of to confine them to a hotel.

A. to allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day instead of to confine them to

B. that would have allowed members of the jury to go home at the end of each day instead confined to

C.under which the members of the jury are allowed to go home at the end of each day instead confining them in

D.that would allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day rather than confinement in

E.to allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day rather than be confined to


In the above example i split on the basis of conditionals.

Since the motion is denied that is past ..we should be using conditional ..would or/would have.....i came down to B and D ..and choose D.

Kindly exlain why this is not applicable? and where is it applicable?

[Jim@StratusPrep]

Here is my take on working through eliminations with this problem:

FIRST ELIMINATION

C - this is wrong for a number of reasons; I notice it as a standout with 'under which...' There is no reason for the preposition under and the sentence continues to be wordy and confusing.

SECOND ELIMINTION

D. As the motion was denied, you would need to say 'would have allowed' - you need the past conditional because the motion has already been denied.

PAUSE (and the answer to your question:)

For me it is difficult to see right away which is correct:
1) 'that would have allowed' (the past conditional)

or

2)'to allow members', where I read 'to allow' as 'a motion with the purpose of letting the members go home..'

As such, I move to the end of the sentence to check for differences.

THIRD ELIMINATION

A - 'Instead of' is a compound preposition, meaning a noun must follow - not the verb 'to confine.' There is also some parallelism issues with the meaning of the sentence

LAST ELIMINATION

B - 'each day instead confining' is just flat out poor English. There is no real meaning to this as the words are not linked properly.

[Jim@StratusPrep]

Here is my take on working through eliminations with this problem:

FIRST ELIMINATION

C - this is wrong for a number of reasons; I notice it as a standout with 'under which...' There is no reason for the preposition under and the sentence continues to be wordy and confusing.

SECOND ELIMINTION

D. As the motion was denied, you would need to say 'would have allowed' - you need the past conditional because the motion has already been denied.

PAUSE (and the answer to your question:)

For me it is difficult to see right away which is correct:
1) 'that would have allowed' (the past conditional)

or

2)'to allow members', where I read 'to allow' as 'a motion with the purpose of letting the members go home..'

As such, I move to the end of the sentence to check for differences.

THIRD ELIMINATION

A - 'Instead of' is a compound preposition, meaning a noun must follow - not the verb 'to confine.' There is also some parallelism issues with the meaning of the sentence

LAST ELIMINATION

B - 'each day instead confining' is just flat out poor English. There is no real meaning to this as the words are not linked properly.

[Jim@StratusPrep]

Here is my take on working through eliminations with this problem:

FIRST ELIMINATION

C - this is wrong for a number of reasons; I notice it as a standout with 'under which...' There is no reason for the preposition under and the sentence continues to be wordy and confusing.

SECOND ELIMINTION

D. As the motion was denied, you would need to say 'would have allowed' - you need the past conditional because the motion has already been denied.

PAUSE (and the answer to your question:)

For me it is difficult to see right away which is correct:
1) 'that would have allowed' (the past conditional)

or

2)'to allow members', where I read 'to allow' as 'a motion with the purpose of letting the members go home..'

As such, I move to the end of the sentence to check for differences.

THIRD ELIMINATION

A - 'Instead of' is a compound preposition, meaning a noun must follow - not the verb 'to confine.' There is also some parallelism issues with the meaning of the sentence

LAST ELIMINATION

B - 'each day instead confining' is just flat out poor English. There is no real meaning to this as the words are not linked properly.

[Sun Light]

Judge Bonham denied a motion to allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day instead of to confine them to a hotel.

A. to allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day instead of to confine them to

B. that would have allowed members of the jury to go home at the end of each day instead confined to

C.under which the members of the jury are allowed to go home at the end of each day instead confining them in

D.that would allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day rather than confinement in

E.to allow members of the jury to go home at the end of each day rather than be confined to


In the above example i split on the basis of conditionals.

Since the motion is denied that is past ..we should be using conditional ..would or/would have.....i came down to B and D ..and choose D.

Kindly exlain why this is not applicable? and where is it applicable?

HI,


If I knew that Tom was coming to the party, I would not have went to the movie.

Notice usage of would - change of context, if a certain event would have happened in the past.