Quesiton about tense sequence

[ikuta.yamahashi]

Dear instructor:

I have a question about the Tense Sequence in the page 110 Manhattan SC strategy gudie 5ed.

*I cite the content here for convinence. If it is not allowed please let me know I will delete it.*

In these sorts of reporting sentences, avoid mixing Present tense with Conditional tense. Likewise, avoid mixing Past tense with Future tense. The usual sequences are EITHER Present + Future OR Past + Conditional.
Wrong: The scientist BELIEVED that the machine WILL BE wonderful.

But in OG 13ed sc-40, a non-underlined part contain this "Wrong" pattern, which confused me alot.
*I rewrite the official question for the copyrights issue here*
XXXX announced that XXXX will pare YYYY ...by the beginning of next year.
Past Tense + Future Tense pattern is presneted in OG.

I understand the non-underlined part in SC Official Question is deemed as right pattern in GMAT, and I have no intended to challenge both the MGMAT stragegy gudie and Official question; however, I am little bit confused about this pattern.
So, my question is that can we take this pattern as a split in the real test?

Thanks for your feedback.
Sincerely Yamahashi

[Willy]

But in OG 13ed sc-40, a non-underlined part contain this "Wrong" pattern, which confused me alot.
*I rewrite the official question for the copyrights issue here*
XXXX announced that XXXX will pare YYYY ...by the beginning of next year.
Past Tense + Future Tense pattern is presneted in OG.

I hope we are fine with posting a part of OG problems.

I am reproducing a part of Q#40 (OG13th) so that everyone can understand what is going on this in this discussion.

....(OPEC) had long been expected to announce a reduction in output to bolster sagging oil prices, but officials of the organization just recently announced that the group will pare daily production ...

Here, I think officials 'announced' something 'just recently', so I believe with 'just recently' we can consider this 'announcement' in present.

But, if we consider a time gap with 'just recently' (no matter how less) you are correct with reasoning and GMAT made another error.

[ikuta.yamahashi]

But in OG 13ed sc-40, a non-underlined part contain this "Wrong" pattern, which confused me alot.
*I rewrite the official question for the copyrights issue here*
XXXX announced that XXXX will pare YYYY ...by the beginning of next year.
Past Tense + Future Tense pattern is presneted in OG.

I hope we are fine with posting a part of OG problems.

I am reproducing a part of Q#40 (OG13th) so that everyone can understand what is going on this in this discussion.

....(OPEC) had long been expected to announce a reduction in output to bolster sagging oil prices, but officials of the organization just recently announced that the group will pare daily production ...

Here, I think officials 'announced' something 'just recently', so I believe with 'just recently' we can consider this 'announcement' in present.

But, if we consider a time gap with 'just recently' (no matter how less) you are correct with reasoning and GMAT made another error.

Thanks for your explaination, I can understand why past tense; however the real puzzle for me here is why simple future *will pare* instead of Conditional tense in a past circumstance(say *announced*)?

According to Mgmat strategy guide, Past + Future pattern is wrong case, please see below example:
Wrong: The scientist BELIEVED that the machine WILL BE wonderful.

sincerely Yama

[tim]

i think on this type of question you really just need to figure out what makes sense - is the future event intended to be conditional, or is it intended to be something definite? some of this will depend on the perspective of the reader. i think both of the following make sense:

company X announced that its profits would increase
(either it never happened when expected, or we are still waiting but not sure it will happen)

company X announced that its profits will increase
(we are still waiting for it to happen and fairly certain it will)

[ikuta.yamahashi]

i think on this type of question you really just need to figure out what makes sense - is the future event intended to be conditional, or is it intended to be something definite? some of this will depend on the perspective of the reader. i think both of the following make sense:

company X announced that its profits would increase
(either it never happened when expected, or we are still waiting but not sure it will happen)

company X announced that its profits will increase
(we are still waiting for it to happen and fairly certain it will)

Thanks for your reply Tim, crystal clear now.
But still I would like to feedback the imformation form Mgmat sc guide, because it looks like confusing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In these sorts of reporting sentences, avoid mixing Present tense with Conditional tense. Likewise, avoid mixing Past tense with Future tense. The usual sequences are EITHER Present + Future OR Past + Conditional.


Right: The scientist BELIEVES that the machine WILL BE wonderful.
Present Future
Right: The scientist BELIEVED that the machine WOULD BE wonderful.
Past Conditional
Wrong: The scientist BELIEVES that the machine WOULD BE wonderful.
Present Conditional
Wrong: The scientist BELIEVED that the machine WILL BE wonderful.
Past Future

[jlucero]

ikuta-

I'd like to point out what the book says:

In these sorts of reporting sentences, avoid mixing Present tense with Conditional tense. Likewise, avoid mixing Past tense with Future tense.

It doesn't say to never mix past and future tenses, but avoid doing so. The problem with the English language is that there will (almost) always be exceptions to anything that we report as a firm rule. I would say this is more of an idiom than anything else and deals with the main verbs- announce vs believe.

When you announced something in the past, you said it in the past. There is a definitive time when you started and stopped saying it. But when you believed something in the past, it is implied that you no longer believe that thing to be true.

I announced that I was ready. (doesn't have current implications)
I believed that I was ready. (implied that this only is true in the past, not true any longer; otherwise, why wouldn't you say "I believe that I am ready)

Therefore, when you move to the future tense, it sounds awkward to say you believed something in the past, DON'T CURRENTLY BELIEVE IT NOW, but think it will still happen in the future. Instead, you need a conditional verb to say that X is what you believed would be true.

On the other hand, you can announce something in the past, and without knowing any present moment implications, believe it to happen in the future.

I'd say this deals with both idioms and verb tenses at the same time. It's like trying to do a geometry problem that has combinatoric probability and trying to jam it all into one strategy guide. The strategy guide gives good general advice, but sometimes it leaves out specific anomalies to avoid overburdening students. Something you just have to learn from one specific problem.

[pleaman]

ikuta-

I'd like to point out what the book says:

In these sorts of reporting sentences, avoid mixing Present tense with Conditional tense. Likewise, avoid mixing Past tense with Future tense.

It doesn't say to never mix past and future tenses, but avoid doing so. The problem with the English language is that there will (almost) always be exceptions to anything that we report as a firm rule. I would say this is more of an idiom than anything else and deals with the main verbs- announce vs believe.

When you announced something in the past, you said it in the past. There is a definitive time when you started and stopped saying it. But when you believed something in the past, it is implied that you no longer believe that thing to be true.

I announced that I was ready. (doesn't haver current implications)
I believed that I was ready. (implied that this only is true in the past, not true any longer; otherwise, why wouldn't you say "I believe that I am ready)

Therefore, when you move to the future tense, it sounds awkward to say you believed something in the past, DON'T CURRENTLY BELIEVE IT NOW, but think it will still happen in the future. Instead, you need a conditional verb to say that X is what you believed would be true.

On the other hand, you can announce something in the past, and without knowing any present moment implications, believe it to happen in the future.

I'd say this deals with both idioms and verb tenses at the same time. It's like trying to do a geometry problem that has combinatoric probability and trying to jam it all into one strategy guide. The strategy guide gives good general advice, but sometimes it leaves out specific anomalies to avoid overburdening students. Something you just have to learn from one specific problem.

Perfect explanation. Thank you very much.

[jlucero]

Sure thing.

[ZHUJ908]

dear instructor:

[deleted because problem is from a banned source - see below]

i do not understand why OG says"in choiceB, this use of the passive voice makes this sentence vague" ?
i searched for some other websites about this problem, and I read an opinion:
the passive voice is needed when you do not know who does this action.

Please let me know passive voice better.

thanks in advance~

[tim]

Passive voice by itself is *never* a reason to get rid of an answer choice. Please remember that while the correct answers to OG problems are always correct, the explanations often leave a lot to be desired and are sometimes factually incorrect. For instance, have you ever seen the OG say something is wrong because it's "awkward and wordy"? This is *always* the wrong reason. When you see the writers of the solutions make a mistake like this, your job is then to figure out the real reason why the answer choice is wrong.

[tim]

Also, please note that I have deleted the problem you quoted because it is illegal to post OG problems on our forum.

[ZHUJ908]

Also, please note that I have deleted the problem you quoted because it is illegal to post OG problems on our forum.

Thanks for your explanation on passive voice above. I have learned this issue from other posts you have made before.

Thanks a lot!

[tim]

Glad to hear it!