SC Strategy Guide - Topic on tenses

[gs.abhinav]

Hi,

This is in reference to the discussion on pg 111 of the topic on verb tenses

As per the guide, sequence of verbs should be

Present + Future OR Past + Conditional

Can I apply this rule to the following sentences? If yes then which one of the two would be grammatically correct?

It was an increase in reported cases of malaria along the Gulf Coast that in 1921 led authorities to grant a permit for human experimentation to the group later called Unimedco.

It was an increase in reported cases of malaria along the Gulf Coast that in 1921 led authorities to grant a permit for human experimentation to the group that later would be called by the name of Unimedco.

Thanks in advance for your help

[gs.abhinav]

Stacey/Ron - Please take a minute to respond to my question. I have posted another question in the same section which has also not been answered for a while...

I will be glad if you can take a couple of minutes to quickly respond to these questions..

[tim]

Okay, quick lesson on getting your questions answered: you respond to your own post, it pushes your post to the END of our list. Your post is now only being answered because i have finished answering literally EVERY OTHER QUESTION IN THE ENTIRE SECTION and yours is the last one to answer. We all follow this very strict priority, which is why no one else answered your question either..

As for your question, the second sentence uses the "would" appropriately as described in the book. Where did you get this sentence though? Both of the options you give have grammatical problems..

BTW since i looked up the page you referred to, i'll go ahead and point out the typo at the bottom of the page: the last "would be" should say "will be".. :)

[gs.abhinav]

Tim, sorry I was just anxious to get an answer for my question.. I had posted it long back and was wondering if it went unnoticed by the mods..

Coming back to the question, to be honest, I am not sure of the source of the question because I came across it on one of the forums. I know it is taboo to say that here and that is why I did not post the whole question.. but I really want to understand this... I hope you won't mind it as long as we are discussing the semantics of a general English statement (not a question)

Can you please point out the grammatical error in the sentences? The right one as per public opinion seems to be the first sentence.

I liked the later because it complied to the "would be" rule. I didn't like the former at all because it didn't sound right. And now that you say that neither is correct, I am quite curious to know what could be the mistake. Are you referring to the use of "that" in both sentences? Ironically that was outside the purview of the underlined part.

I have slightly corrected some errors I made while typing..

It was an increase in reported cases of malaria along the Gulf Coast that in 1921 led "the authorities to grant a permit for human experimentation to the group later called Unimedco."

It was an increase in reported cases of malaria along the Gulf Coast that in 1921 led "the authorities to grant a permit for human experimentation to the group that later would be called by the name of Unimedco."

[gs.abhinav]

Just to add to what I said earlier, It was....that is correct usage, so I am wrong in my assessment of "that" in the sentence..

Also, regarding the error on the page, yes I checked it on the forum error list and it is present there

oh and I have another one of the same kind -

"It was the loss of revenue from declines in tourism that in 1935 led the Saudi authorities to grant a concession for oil exploration to the company later to be known as Aramco."

[tim]

Well, the problem i noted was the "it was..." construction at the front of each sentence; it's unnecessarily wordy, but it does have its place because it conveys a slightly different shade of meaning than just saying "an increase ... led authorities". However, the difference in meaning is one that typically would show up only if there were previous dialogue that indicated some uncertainty as to the cause. So the bottom line is, unless your source is GMAT or MGMAT, take the sentence with a grain of salt and don't automatically assume the non-underlined section is correct..

i like the "would" construction because we've already placed the sentence in the past and we are looking to a point in the future of that past (i hope that makes sense). However, i'm bothered by the "would be called by the name of X", because again it is wordy and not ideal. It should say "would be called X" instead..

The Saudi authorities example is suspiciously similar to the original and looks like whoever wrote that one lifted the text from your first question, so it has the same problems. In addition, the "to be" is problematic; we should instead see "later known as Aramco" or "that later would be known as Aramco". Again, because we are looking into the future from the perspective of the past, i prefer the "would be known as" option..

Ultimately, keep in mind that it is difficult to give definitive answers to a problem that is from a questionable source, as you will frequently find problems that have no right answers or where two answers are acceptable but without enough of a difference to distinguish them adequately..