Present Tense + Conditional Tense

[xycdfr]

Combining enormous physical strength with higher intelligence, the Neanderthals appear to have been equipped to face any obstacle the environment could put in their path, but their relatively sudden disappearance during the Paleolithic era indicates that an inability to adapt to some environmental change led to their extinction.


My question is that how come present tense can be mixed with conditional tense. Manhattan SC 5 clearly rules that: Present + Future OR Past + Conditional are the correct usage. thanks

[at.ouchen]

I think you just skiped the last part,
Manhattan SC page 113

2) General Rule with some uncertainty
IF Sophie EATS pizza, THEN she MAY BECOME ill.
IF Present, THEN Can or May.
Here, the helping verbs can or may can be used to allow for a somewhat uncertain outcome.

[RonPurewal]

Trying to memorize combinations of tenses is a bad idea.
Just think about the tenses, in context, and ask yourself whether they make sense. If they make sense, they're fine.

Here, we're talking about theoretical obstacles, so "could" makes perfect sense.

[RonPurewal]

Also, note that you're examining a spurious "relationship" between two verbs that are not even describing the same timeframe/situation!

The essence of this sentence is, "It appears (now) that X thing was true (in the distant past)".
"Appear" is from the 'now' part; "could..." is from the distant-past part. No reason to look for a relationship here.

[xycdfr]

Also, note that you're examining a spurious "relationship" between two verbs that are not even describing the same timeframe/situation!

The essence of this sentence is, "It appears (now) that X thing was true (in the distant past)".
"Appear" is from the 'now' part; "could..." is from the distant-past part. No reason to look for a relationship here.

Thanks you very Ron. I got your point fully. Tense is about meaning and context, and is very flexible. in the very case, the two verbs refer to two different time frames, and usage of present and conditional tense are perfect normal.

[RonPurewal]

Yes.

In fact, verb tense is one hundred percent meaning and zero percent grammar.
From the standpoint of grammar, all verbs are equivalent.

As soon as you've established that something is (or should be) a verb, you're done with grammar. From that point onward, it's all context.
(If you have to decide between a verb and something that's not a verb"”e.g., "swam" vs. "swimming""”then that's going to be a grammatical issue.)

[LARAZ145]

Hi Ron,

My question is why is the correct sentence "appear to HAVE BEEN equipped"…they have already disappeared and thus shouldn't the tense be past perfect or past simple?

Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

"to have ___ed" is the only past-tense version of "to ___".

[HemantR606]

"to have ___ed" is the only past-tense version of "to ___".

Hi Ron,

I did not understand this explanation.

I have read in the Manhattan SC Guide as well as many other places that present perfect is used only to describe an action that started in the past and still has effect in the present. But here the neanderthals' effect clearly ended way back in the past.

So, how can we use present perfect tense here?

Is this present perfect at all?

Isn't 'had been' a better fit here?


------------------
Thanks,
Hemant

[HemantR606]

"to have ___ed" is the only past-tense version of "to ___".

Hi Ron,

I did not understand this explanation.

I have read in the Manhattan SC Guide as well as many other places that present perfect is used only to describe an action that started in the past and still has effect in the present. But here the neanderthals' effect clearly ended way back in the past.

So, how can we use present perfect tense here?

Is this present perfect at all?

Isn't 'had been' a better fit here?


------------------
Thanks,
Hemant

Hi Ron,

I have found the required explanation on this link
http://www.beatthegmat.com/og-12-q-73-t38806-15.html

That is a great explanation. Thank you.


--------------
Hemant

[RonPurewal]

excellent.

that you actually searched the internet to find that post is excellent, too.

[Serendipity750]

excellent.

that you actually searched the internet to find that post is excellent, too.

Hi Ron,

How should I understand the meaning of "appear" in here, when I first read the sentence, I thought it countered "disappearance", and the action took in the past, so I just crossed out all the present tense of appear, why should the tense of appear be in line with 'indicates"? Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

that thought process ^^ indicates that you're not paying enough attention to STEP 1.

STEP ONE of EVERY SC problem:
figure out the INTENDED MEANING of the sentence.
• NO thoughts of grammar
• NO "hunting for errors"
• just figure out exactly what the sentence is meant to say.
(this should ALWAYS be possible, regardless of whether there are errors-- in the same way that you should always be able to understand e-mails from colleagues with poor english skills.)

if you think carefully about the meaning of this sentence, you'll realize that there is only one possible meaning of "appear" here: namely, the way things "appear" to present observers.

if "appear" were intended in a past sense, the sentence would have to contain an answer to the question "To whom, and/or when, did the Neanderthals 'appear' in such a way ?"

[RonPurewal]

moreover, if this is your interpretation --

I thought it countered "disappearance"

-- then there's no reasonable role for "equipped to face xxxx" to play.

in other words, if "appear" = "materialize" (as suggested here), then one would just write that the neatherthals appeared at time xxxx or appeared under xxxxx circumstances. there's no sensible way to wedge the "equipped to face xxxxx" part into that context.

[harika.apu]

"to have ___ed" is the only past-tense version of "to ___".

hello Ron ,

I came across one of your posts which says that
"To ___" and "to have ___ed" are not verbs, so they don't have "tenses". Only verbs have tenses.
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... 88b3dfac21

If so, then how is "to have_ed" past version of "to_" ?

Can you please clarify ?
Thanks.