you seem to have totally ignored my request for more clarification, and i can't help you until you deal with that. when you say there are two patterns you've noticed and then i ask you for examples, the appropriate response is examples, not a new post that says you have seen three patterns! :)

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor

The OG explanation for this answer is really confusing. it mentions "for a past condition, the subordinate clause introduced by if uses the past indicative, and the main clause uses the conditional if x happened, then y would happen"

the weird thing is, answer choice (B) doesn't have a conditional. I don't see the conditional marker "if"

"without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure"

answer (B) looks like a simple past then conditional. where conditional "would" is the future seen from the past's perspective.

in the mgamt SC guide it explains the conditional tense as a moving back of the future tense.

he plays soccer and he will play baseball
he played soccer and he would play baseball

so what is so "conditional" about that tense? when it was simple present + future, there doesn't seem to be any condition. why when we move it into the past it all of a sudden is conditional?

Pls, help

I see that general grammar permit 3 pattern

if do.., will do

if did... would do/ or if did... did

if had done... would have done.

I can not understand the difference between

if I learned English, I got good score on gmat

and

if I learned English, I would get good score on gmat.

I also do not understand why A and C in above problem are wrong. Pls, help.

dave --
you have the right elements of understanding in your post, but you are conflating two things that are actually separate.
specifically,
(a) the conditional use of would
and
(b) the “past-future” use of would (i don't know if there is a real name for this)
are different; they aren't the same tense.

i think you pretty much understand both of them, but you are getting confused because you are trying to reconcile them with each other. don't try to reconcile them -- they're different.
i wrote about this here:
http://www.beatthegmat.com/demographers ... tml#216712

_________________
Being well-dressed gives a feeling of inward tranquillity [that] religion is powerless to bestow.
C.F. Forbes

you would use these tenses to describe actual sequences of observations from the past. this is a bit weird in this context, because “learned english” is not really something that you can do in some cases but not in others.
here's an example that works better with these tenses:
if students in soviet russia showed mathematical or scientific aptitude, they were placed in specialized educational tracks from a very young age.
--> this sentence relates actual past observations. if students showed these kinds of aptitude, they were placed in the programs; if they didn't, they probably weren't.



this tense combination does not relate actual observations; it's hypothetical. in the context of the sentence, you don't actually know english yet, and are hypothesizing about the consequences of learning it if you decide to do so.

_________________
Being well-dressed gives a feeling of inward tranquillity [that] religion is powerless to bestow.
C.F. Forbes

those two choices use “was not secure”, which is in the same tense as the rest of the context. the implication is that this observation is simultaneous with the rest of the sentence.
that doesn't click with the actual context: the meaning of the sentence is that the french were uneasy about the future of their hold on gibraltar.

_________________
Being well-dressed gives a feeling of inward tranquillity [that] religion is powerless to bestow.
C.F. Forbes

thanks so much Ron. I also got the same great answer from your video on verb tenses

glad to hear it!

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor

I have an issue understanding the pronoun ambiguity issue in this question c and e say that 'it' is ambiguous because 'it' can refer back to Morocco or Algeria....so that's a problem in c and e.

How is this issue fixed in (b)?

I was down to to b and e. Now how can I easily eliminate (e) other than that it is inverted and weird sounding one.

Does a pronoun has to be the in the same case (obj, sub, possessive) as its antecedent's case. Also can a pronoun can be placed before or after its antecedent in the sentence?

Hi Ron,

Will you please explain what the opening modifier, Affording strategic proximity to the Strait of Gibraltar, modifies. Does it modify French or Morocco. I am confused as i think that even morocco can afford strategic proximity but my instructor says that it modifies French & it could not be otherwise for the meaning of sentence is such.

I would also appreciate if you could explain the correct meaning of the sentence as i am a non native speaker.

Thanks

“Affording strategic proximity to the Strait of Gibraltar” modifies Morocco.

Here is the meaning of the sentence:

Morocco had good relation with Strait of Gibraltar, so French were interested in controlling Morocco, because French believed that without having control over Morocco their grip on Algeria would not be strong.

Manhattan Instructors,

Please refer to my post above and suggest what opening modifier modifies, Morocco or French.

Thanks

it modifies morocco.

1/
it has to; that's how this kind of initial modifier works.

2/
meaning-wise, it would be absolute nonsense for this modifier to modify "the french".
Affording strategic proximity to the Strait of Gibraltar means, basically, "providing a location that's close to the strait of gibraltar". this obviously has to be talking about a physical location, i.e. morocco.

_________________
Being well-dressed gives a feeling of inward tranquillity [that] religion is powerless to bestow.
C.F. Forbes

Thank you Ron, I want to come back this problem because some book say that "if do, do" is a conditional sentence. Possibly, those books are not suitable with gmat standard.

Please, tell me "if did, did" , "if students showED scientific aptitude, they WERE placed in specialize educational track" is used ONLY TO SHOW PAST OBSERVATION, or is used to show past observation OR conditional.

second point,

whether the pattern " if students SHOW scientific aptitude, they ARE placed in specialized educational track" , "if do,...do" exist or not. (present tense).

if that pattern exist, How dose the pattern is used? pls, explain/give example.

Thank you, Ron.

for your first point, you basically asked Ron if what said in his previous post was correct. i can confirm that yes, it was correct..

for your second point, you give an example of something and then ask for an example of it. i'm afraid i'm at a total loss to understand what you want from us here..

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor