soar!

[gmat_perfect]

If current trends continue, by the year 2010 carbon emissions in the United States will soar to a level more than one-third higher than were those in 1990, according to official projections.

(A) will soar to a level more than one-third higher than were those
(B) will soar to a level more than one-third higher than that
(C) would soar to a level more than one-third higher than it was
(D) would soar to a level more than one-third higher than those
(E) would soar to a level more than one-third higher than they were

[spoiler]OA: B[/spoiler]

[kvcpk]

MGMAT SC says In an unlikely case, of "if... then" construct, would is used.

What am i missing here?

[uwhusky]

would and will are the same. "would" is past tense of "will".

[vijaynaik]

Why is C incorrect?

[uwhusky]

Why is C incorrect?

An addition of the verb "was" changes the meaning of C. Highly suspect when you see a verb is added to one of the answers.

[reply2spg]

MGMAT SC also says, if it is just a future tense then use 'will'. 'would' is good in conditional cases or in subjunctive mood.

This is not a subjunctive mood, this is just a prediction

5 if...then cases

1. if present, then present
2. if present, then may or can
3. if present, then future (will)
4. if past, then would
5. if past perfect, then would have

This is type 3.

So B is correct

MGMAT SC says In an unlikely case, of "if... then" construct, would is used.

What am i missing here?

[kvcpk]

would and will are the same. "would" is past tense of "will".

Would is a conditional indicator. Would is used in unlikely case.

I am referring to page 113 on MGMAT book. Can u please look into it once and share your thoughts?

[uwhusky]

This is not a subjunctive mood, this is just a prediction

Anytime you see the usage of modal verb such as "would/will", "should/shall", "can/could", "might/may", it always represents subjunctive mood.

But you're right about the tense though, because "would" is past tense, and therefore an action that took place in the past should be followed with a modal verb in the past tense.

[uwhusky]

would and will are the same. "would" is past tense of "will".

Would is a conditional indicator. Would is used in unlikely case.

I am referring to page 113 on MGMAT book. Can u please look into it once and share your thoughts?

Correct, would is indeed a conditional indicator, and so is will. The question at hand is identification of the present/past tense, and in this case, present conditional is the correct tense.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/will

Main Entry: 1will
Pronunciation: \wəl, (ə)l, əl, ˈwil\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): past would

[reply2spg]

Got you!!!

Will keep in mind, thanks for sharing

This is not a subjunctive mood, this is just a prediction

Anytime you see the usage of modal verb such as "would/will", "should/shall", "can/could", "might/may", it always represents subjunctive mood.

But you're right about the tense though, because "would" is past tense, and therefore an action that took place in the past should be followed with a modal verb in the past tense.

[uwhusky]

Looking at the MGMAT SC book again, I think Manhattan could really help its readers if it actually breaks down modal verbs in the section and explain its usage. I think the confusion between "will" and "would" will always be there unless they're better explained with more details.

I mean, wouldn't it make more sense to explain that the reason why "will" is used instead of "would" is because of the tense issue, rather than illustrating a sentence with bunch of capitalized words and saying that the whole sentence is "future with uncertainty", which confuses the readers and cannot fully grasp which capitalized word(s) is giving the sentence such mood.

[vijaynaik]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vijaynaik wrote:
Why is C incorrect?

An addition of the verb "was" changes the meaning of C. Highly suspect when you see a verb is added to one of the answers.
-----------------
Keeping aside the 'would/will' issue
I thought 'it was' is refering to the level in 1990 in option C.

"would soar to a level more than one-third higher than it [the level] was" in 1990...

Where am i wrong?
[/list][/quote]

[uwhusky]

I think the key here is understanding why verb exist and its role. Sentences are built by two essential elements, a subject noun phrase and a verb that demonstrates tense. So when you see a verb being tossed into an answer and another answer does not have a verb, that should almost be like "red flag warning!" because verb is such an important element within a sentence.

On the other hand, prepositions are tossed around in lengthy sentences as adjectives/adverbs, and they're almost always there to distract you from the real important things, subject and the verb.

In this case, the comparison could be written as:

"The level in 1990" and "the level was in 1990"

The two are not one of the same, because one is a noun phrase and the other is a clause.

[clock60]

hi guys
i accidentally strike this sentence and want to share some thoughts, any objections are very welcomed.
to me the key point here is not the usage of will or would, ( it might be the case) but comparison and usage pronoun
here i think we compare the level of emisions in 1990 to that of 2010, with valid pronouns
A) level more than one- third higher that were those
what those-? emissions, not level in 1990 ( or that of in1990)- to me incorrect
C) to a level more that one-third higher than it was
almost good, but on remark, here the usage of it implies that it is the same level as in 1990, as pronouns it, they them refer directly to the level in the first part of comparison
D)again level more that one-third higher that those (plural and wrong comparison)
those is not proper pronoun here
E) the same problem seems like compare level with emissions,
so the only left is B

[uwhusky]

hi clock60,

Keep in mind that ignoring the difference between will/would is fatal, it's like ignoring was/is.