In a blow to those who still harbored the illusion

[viest]

In a blow to those who still harbored the illusion that E-mail exchanges are private, a watchdog group recently uncovered a trick for enabling an interloper to rig an E-mail message so that this person will be privy to any comments that a recipient had added as the message is forwarded to others or sent back and forth.

(A) who still harbored the illusion that E-mail exchanges are private, a watchdog group recently uncovered a trick for enabling an interloper to rig an E-mail message so that this person will be privy to any comments that a recipient had added
(B) who had still been harboring the illusion that E-mail exchanges are private, a watchdog group recently uncovered a trick for enabling an interloper to rig an E-mail message so that this person was privy to any comments that a recipient might have added
(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
(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
(E) still harboring the illusion that E-mail exchanges had been private, a watchdog group recently uncovered a trick that will enable an interloper to rig an E-mail message so that this person was privy to any comments that a recipient might add
OA is D. (highlight to reveal)
could you help me choose the answer?

[Guest]

what is the difference between C and D? Thanks

[RonPurewal]

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'.

[tankobe]

In a blow to those who still harbored the illusion that E-mail exchanges are private, a watchdog group recently uncovered a trick for enabling an interloper to rig an E-mail message so that this person will be privy to any comments that a recipient had added as the message is forwarded to others or sent back and forth.

(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 as the message is forwarded to others or sent back and forth.

this is a question about verb tense!
i was totally confused because there are some many kind of verb tense in a sentence.

#1 when dose the harbor or harboring happen? in the past just as uncovered dose or now?

#2 why not were but are is here since harbor or harboring happened in the past?
the illusion that E-mail exchanges are private

#3 why not enabled but enables is here?

#4 dose the suclause--as the message is forwarded to others or sent back and forth modify so that this person will be privy to any comments or that a recipient might add since the former is future tense?

[RonPurewal]

#1 when dose the harbor or harboring happen? in the past just as uncovered dose or now?

ALL -ing constructions follow the same rule.
-ING forms don't have a tense of their own; they ADOPT THE TENSE OF THE CLAUSE THAT THEY MODIFY.

since the "harboring" modifier is tagged onto a past-tense clause (whose main verb is "uncovered"), it's implied that "harboring" also refers to the past tense, simultaneous with "uncovered".

#2 why not were but are is here since harbor or harboring happened in the past?
the illusion that E-mail exchanges are private

#3 why not enabled but enables is here?

same reason for both #2 and #3

if you're talking about GENERAL TRUTHS, then you use the present tense (regardless of the tense(s) in the surrounding context).
the only exception is for things that WERE general truths, but are no longer. in that case, of course, you'd use the past tense. (or, for things that WILL BE general truths but aren't yet, you should use the future tense.)
e.g.
in 1628, william harvey discovered that human blood circulates through the arteries and veins.
"discovered" --> past tense (since this happened in 1628)
"circulates" --> present tense (since this is a GENERAL TRUTH)

it would be inappropriate to say "circulated" unless blood doesn't circulate anymore in today's humans.

#4 dose the suclause--as the message is forwarded to others or sent back and forth modify so that this person will be privy to any comments or that a recipient might add since the former is future tense?

the latter. the best way to figure that out is to check the context; it makes perfect sense to modify the latter, and no sense to modify the former.

[tankobe]

thank you, ron!

[redable]

I'm confused by a stupid question

is "might" the past tense of "may"?
when "might" suggests present tense?

Thank you in advance :)

[RonPurewal]

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.

[rachelhong2012]

This is a really big question, it took me 2:33 to go through it and yet i still picked the wrong answer: I picked A.

because I thought it would be better to have "who" after "those" and forgot about the "had added" doesn't make sense.

Now looking back, I also noticed the split in "trick for enabling" vs. ""a trick that enables".

Can someone please walk me through all these choices and what's the best strategy to tackle a complex sentence like this, which contains many different verb tense splits?

Thanks!

[jnelson0612]

Rachel, very good question. I'll tell you my own process when I first saw this question:
1) notice split between who still/who had/still. Assume that it is probably just "still", because I don't need the extra word "who". The answer is not likely to be B, "who had still been harboring"; I don't need the "had". However, keep going and looking for other splits.
2) Next split: "still harboring the illusion that E-mail exchanges ARE/HAD BEEN private". Well, since this is talking about the an ongoing present situation, it doesn't make sense that these people are still harboring the illusion that the emails "had been" private, but now are not. Drop E.
3) next split: "trick for enabling/enabling/that will enable". Good split here; it has to be "a trick THAT will enable . . .". Knock off A, B, and C. Pick D.

I just go word by word, carefully looking for splits, until I see splits that help me make eliminations. It's really easy to blow by some useful splits, but going word by word helps you avoid this problem. If I don't see splits then I look for common errors such as parallelism and incorrect pronouns.

[rachelhong2012]

Rachel, very good question. I'll tell you my own process when I first saw this question:
1) notice split between who still/who had/still. Assume that it is probably just "still", because I don't need the extra word "who". The answer is not likely to be B, "who had still been harboring"; I don't need the "had". However, keep going and looking for other splits.
2) Next split: "still harboring the illusion that E-mail exchanges ARE/HAD BEEN private". Well, since this is talking about the an ongoing present situation, it doesn't make sense that these people are still harboring the illusion that the emails "had been" private, but now are not. Drop E.
3) next split: "trick for enabling/enabling/that will enable". Good split here; it has to be "a trick THAT will enable . . .". Knock off A, B, and C. Pick D.

I just go word by word, carefully looking for splits, until I see splits that help me make eliminations. It's really easy to blow by some useful splits, but going word by word helps you avoid this problem. If I don't see splits then I look for common errors such as parallelism and incorrect pronouns.

thanks!

[RonPurewal]

.

[thanghnvn]

This question is hard for me.
Ron,Manhantan members.
Pls, explain each answer choice for me.

[RonPurewal]

This question is hard for me.
Ron,Manhantan members.
Pls, explain each answer choice for me.

i'm sorry, but you're going to have to ask a more specific question; we can't produce what would amount to a complete answer key to the problem.
please indicate one or more particular constructions with which you had trouble, and we'll explain. thanks.

[aliassad]

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.