In a blow to those who still harbored the illusion

[thanghnvn]

I'm confused by a stupid question

is "might" the past tense of "may"?

yeah -- that's correct.

"might" can be

1) the past tense of "may", as you have indicated:
PRESENT: The company employs tutors to answer any questions that its students may have.
PAST: During its existence, the company employed tutors to answer any questions that its students might have.

2) the hypothetical subjunctive of "may" -- i.e., used to describe a hypothetical situation that is not actually true in reality:
if i were rich, i might take five years off work to travel around the world, living in each country for a few weeks.

Thanh you Ron. pls, look at D
(D) still harboring the illusion that E-mail exchanges are private, a watchdog group recently uncovered a trick that enables an interloper to rig an E-mail message so that this person will be privy to any comments that a recipient might add

according to your explanation, Why D can used "might" ?

[jlucero]

"might" can be

1) the past tense of "may", as you have indicated:
PRESENT: The company employs tutors to answer any questions that its students may have.
PAST: During its existence, the company employed tutors to answer any questions that its students might have.

2) the hypothetical subjunctive of "may" -- i.e., used to describe a hypothetical situation that is not actually true in reality:
if i were rich, i might take five years off work to travel around the world, living in each country for a few weeks.

Thanh you Ron. pls, look at D
(D) still harboring the illusion that E-mail exchanges are private, a watchdog group recently uncovered a trick that enables an interloper to rig an E-mail message so that this person will be privy to any comments that a recipient might add

according to your explanation, Why D can used "might" ?

In this instance, "might" is being used in the second form- in the subjunctive form to express a hypothetical situation.

This person will be privy to any comments that a recipient might add.

If a recipient were to add comments, this (other) person will be (in the future) privy to any comments. This best expresses the main idea of the sentence.

[chinky]

I'm confused by a stupid question

is "might" the past tense of "may"?

yeah -- that's correct.

"might" can be

1) the past tense of "may", as you have indicated:
PRESENT: The company employs tutors to answer any questions that its students may have.
PAST: During its existence, the company employed tutors to answer any questions that its students might have.

2) the hypothetical subjunctive of "may" -- i.e., used to describe a hypothetical situation that is not actually true in reality:
if i were rich, i might take five years off work to travel around the world, living in each country for a few weeks.

Hi Ron,

I saw your explanation for use of "might" above. the hypothetical subjunctive of "may" -"Might" - can be used to describe a hypothetical situation that is not actually true in reality.

But here the hypothetical situation could clearly be true. You gave the same reason to discard option C with "would add" in your previous post which i have copied below. With that reasoning i discarded option C also.

Could you please explain where am I going wrong? I am little confused with the usage of might.

'would add' can be interpreted in two ways: either as a subjunctive (for a hypothetical that isn't actually true, as in 'i wish you dressed more nicely') or as the past-tense version of 'will'. the first doesn't make sense, because this hypothetical could clearly be true, and the second doesn't make sense because the hack is being described in the present tense, not the past tense. 'might', a present tense construction, makes more sense.

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

this sentence is not talking about an actual recipient; it's purely hypothetical.
so, the text about what a hypothetical recipient "might add" is also purely hypothetical -- i.e., not real.

this is not to say that this sort of situation couldn't happen in reality -- only that we aren't actually talking about reality.

the same is true for my example of "if i were rich, i might..."
again, this is not an impossible situation; the sentence only implies that it isn't true at present.

[rachelhong2012]

I have a small query.

"a trick enabling an interloper vs. a trick that enables"

Does the latter convey more effective meaning as that refers directly to the trick whereas in former enabling can make mean that watchdog is enabling an interloper?

Thanks in advance.

I'm going to take a shot at this-----
I think the main difference between "enabling" and "that enables" is tense which conveys different meaning



(C)who still were harboring the illusion that E-mail exchanges are private, a watchdog group recently uncovered a trick enabling an interloper to rig an E-mail message so that this person is privy to any comments that a recipient would add

("enabling" is an -ING modifier.

-ING modifiers don't have a tense. they automatically adopt the tense of the clause to which they're attached. In this case, "enabling" is adopting the tense of "uncovered" which is in past tense. Enabling can't be in past tense because that means this trick only enabled but doesn't always "enables". This trick enables is a fact, so it shouldn't change to past tense but should always remain in present tense)


(D) still harboring the illusion that E-mail exchanges are private, a watchdog group recently uncovered a trick that enables an interloper to rig an E-mail message so that this person will be privy to any comments that a recipient might add

[RonPurewal]

i don't think there's a problem with either of those.

"enabling" doesn't have a tense; it just adopts the timeframe of the sentence -- which is logical here.

"enables" is in the present tense; that tense -- which is used to make general statements whose truth doesn't depend on a particular timeframe -- makes sense here, too. (if it's a trick that enables xxxxx, then that doesn't depend on the timeframe -- it's what the trick does.)

[vikram4689]

yeah -- that's correct.

"might" can be

1) the past tense of "may", as you have indicated:
PRESENT: The company employs tutors to answer any questions that its students may have.
PAST: During its existence, the company employed tutors to answer any questions that its students might have.

2) the hypothetical subjunctive of "may" -- i.e., used to describe a hypothetical situation that is not actually true in reality:
if i were rich, i might take five years off work to travel around the world, living in each country for a few weeks.

Hi Ron,

I saw your explanation for use of "might" above. the hypothetical subjunctive of "may" -"Might" - can be used to describe a hypothetical situation that is not actually true in reality.

But here the hypothetical situation could clearly be true. You gave the same reason to discard option C with "would add" in your previous post which i have copied below. With that reasoning i discarded option C also.

Could you please explain where am I going wrong? I am little confused with the usage of might.

'would add' can be interpreted in two ways: either as a subjunctive (for a hypothetical that isn't actually true, as in 'i wish you dressed more nicely') or as the past-tense version of 'will'. the first doesn't make sense, because this hypothetical could clearly be true, and the second doesn't make sense because the hack is being described in the present tense, not the past tense. 'might', a present tense construction, makes more sense.

Thanks

this sentence is not talking about an actual recipient; it's purely hypothetical.
so, the text about what a hypothetical recipient "might add" is also purely hypothetical -- i.e., not real.

this is not to say that this sort of situation couldn't happen in reality -- only that we aren't actually talking about reality.

the same is true for my example of "if i were rich, i might..."
again, this is not an impossible situation; the sentence only implies that it isn't true at present.

though i am clear that sentence intends hypothetical(highly unlikely) situation of addition of message, i am confused because both usages(1 ans 2) of "might" and "would" that are described above and post7528.html#p7528 are almost identical. if we can use 'might add' then why we can't use 'would add'

[tim]

wait, *in the post you linked to*, Ron described the difference between "might" and "would". you cannot then use this as evidence to conclude that "might" and "would" are almost identical and then to question why we can't substitute one for the other..

[vikram4689]

ok, lets leave that post. the usage of might described above is identical to usage of would (hypothetical), then why only one of them is correct

[jnelson0612]

ok, lets leave that post. the usage of might described above is identical to usage of would (hypothetical), then why only one of them is correct

Vikram, I'd like to help but I'm confused. "might" and "would" have different meanings so their usage cannot be identical. Let's look at some examples:

If I get a 700 on the GMAT I might apply to Harvard.
(If I get the score then maybe I will apply and maybe I won't)

If I were to obtain a 700 on the GMAT I would apply to Harvard.
(I will definitely apply if I get the score)

[vikram4689]

please see usage of might post7528.html#p46254 and would post45300.html#p45300

both of them have
1. a past tense usage that looks similar (vaguely i can say that each of them refers to future in a past time frame)
2. a subjunctive usage that describes uncertainity of happening of an event in future

[tim]

sure, but none of this is incompatible with the meanings Jamie did such a great job of differentiating in her post..

[vikram4689]

jamie, tim,
there are only 2 usages of would, then how can the point we are discussing be out of scope of these 2 usages. in the 2 links i mentioned above, what do you think is incompatible. usages of would and might seem so identical

Also, i don't think following sentence follows the rule of if-then construction. (not to say that i doubt knowledge of instructors but i could be a typo. if i am wrong please correct me)
If I get a 700 on the GMAT I might apply to Harvard. - if we use "get" (present tense) then we need "may" (future tense) and if we want to use "might" then we must use "were to get" (hypothetical)

[tim]

to be honest, i'm not even sure what your question is anymore. what i know for sure is that i pointed out that your examples were NOT incompatible with what Jamie said, and you followed up with a question asking why they are incompatible. i have to admit i'm confused at this point, so it may be helpful for you to clearly and completely state what your questions are so we can make sure we're on the same page..

[thanghnvn]

what is the difference between C and D?

a few things about choice c:
(1) 'who were still harboring' is wordy, esp. in comparison to the more concise version 'still harboring' presented in choice d**
(2) 'is privy' doesn't make as much sense as will be privy', because the comments to which the person will be privy haven't been posted yet (it's a future occurrence)
(3) 'would add' can be interpreted in two ways: either as a subjunctive (for a hypothetical that isn't actually true, as in 'i wish you dressed more nicely') or as the past-tense version of 'will'. the first doesn't make sense, because this hypothetical could clearly be true, and the second doesn't make sense because the hack is being described in the present tense, not the past tense. 'might', a present tense construction, makes more sense.

choice d, on the other hand, uses the more concise form 'still harboring' and the correct-tense forms 'will be' and 'might'.

Thank you Ron
gmat accept the use of "do" in the "so that " purpose clause. evidence for this is the following sentence from gmatprep.
The Chicago and Calumet Rivers originally flowed into the St. Lawrence by way of Lake Michigan, but having been redirected by constructing canals so that the water now empties into the Mississippi by way of the Illinois River.

(A) Rivers originally flowed into the St. Lawrence by way of Lake Michigan, but having been redirected by constructing
(B) Rivers had originally flowed into the St. Lawrence by way of Lake Michigan, but they have been redirected by constructing
(C) Rivers, which originally flowed into the St. Lawrence by way of Lake Michigan but have been redirected by the construction of
(D) Rivers, originally flowing into the St. Lawrence by way of Lake Michigan, but having been redirected by the construction of
(E) Rivers, originally flowing into the St. Lawrence by way of Lake Michigan, have been redirected through the construction of

so, there is no problem with " is" in choice C.

"would do" can not be hypothetical and past form of will inhere. I aggree with you. but both "would do" and "will do" can be used for present time. "would do" is less certain and more polite than "will do".

however, "would do" is still used to say of certainty while "might do" is used to say of possibility. This make choice C wrong because the meaning should be a possiblity not a certainty

one question, pls, help.

I see "would do " appear frequently in present time on gmat and on good material . I do not fully understand the use of "would do" in present time and grammar books do not say much of this point. pls explain more the use of "would do" in present time not in past time or unreal hypothetical action.

thank you.