<p>“Would” is in fact a modal auxiliary verb and can be used in cases of possibility. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Could” and “would” do work as auxiliaries in the future conditional modality, but as you figure, so do some other words, such as “might” and “may.” </p>
<p>The form of the sentence is “[Future unreal conditional tense], [prepositional phrase [participial phrase]], [simple future tense].”</p>
<p>The simple future tense clause should be in the subjunctive mood because the adverbial clause is in the future unreal conditional tense. Therefore, it is not explicitly visible in the sentence that “we might get” is in the simple future tense because the subjunctive mood necessitates one of the modal auxiliaries, which are tense-neutral and one of which is indeed “might.”</p>
<p>I apologize if this explanation seems esoteric. I will reexplain as needed.</p>
<p>I chose (C) when I read this question. I searched to see where you found the original explanation that (A) was the correct answer and found my post to that effect from a few years back, in which I explained why (B) through (E) were wrong, implying (A) was correct.</p>
<p>I disagree, upon rereading it. (A) is incorrect because in the past conditional tense, “would have known” can be economized to merely “had known”; the modal “would” belongs in the subjunctive independent clause, not the adverbial “if” clause. You are correct to be suspicious of a “would have, would have” conditional structure because it represents redundant modality. </p>
<p>In my post I wrote that (C) is wrong because it omits the conjunction “if” to subordinate the adverbial clause. This is mistaken: “Had” is sufficient to syntactically preserve conditionality. So one could write, for example, either “Had I run the race, I would have won” or “If I had run the race, I would have won.”</p>
<p>One could justify the non-redundancy of both “could” and “would” in this context. If the auxiliaries were used in their senses of possibility, then yes, it’d be redundant. But each can mean other things. “Could” could be meant in its “polite requests” sense: “Could you give me an appointment?” would not be asked if it weren’t, from the speaker’s perspective, possible that the appointment’s giving were feasible, so “could” must be serving some other, non-possibility function there. “Would” likewise has other meanings, many more in fact.</p>
<p>I’m referring to this question, btw:
If you (were willing) to ask for directions, instead of (doggedly) driving on, we might get to (our) destination (sooner). No error.</p>
<p>C is parallel as it should be. He described [A] and **: [A] and ** must be parallel, and as they’re both noun phrases, they satisfy the requirement.</p>
<hr>
<p>Re: “now that”</p>
<p>Silverturtle–I’ve never seen a question testing this idiom. Any reason you think it could be tested? I’m inclined to believe you, but I remain skeptical.</p>
<p>Yes, if the adverbial clause is in the future unreal conditional tense, then the independent clause should be in the subjunctive mood.</p>
<p>Here are two example sentences:</p>
<p>If you were to clean the fridge out, none of my llamas could find nourishment.</p>
<p>If you clean the fridge out, none of my llamas will find nourishment.</p>
<p>In the first sentence the unreal future conditional tense appears in the “if” clause, so the subjunctive “could find” is used in the independent clause. The second sentence, however, uses the real future conditional tense, so the independent clause ought to use the ordinary, indicative mood: “will find.”</p>
<p>Yep. The verb “described” is a transitive verb, meaning it is succeeded by at least one object. Here, there are two objects, which must be nouns. They are “The Dublin he knew” and “the life he experienced there.” </p>
<p>“He knew” and “he experienced there” are merely adjectival clauses modifying “Dublin” and “life,” respectively; the objects themselves are still, correctly, noun phrases and are therefore parallel.</p>
<p>I have never seen a question that tests one’s knowledge of the application of “now that” either, and I have no reason to believe this idiom will be tested rather than some other idiom. Being that it is indeed an idiom, though, and that the SAT does test idioms, I also see no reason the idiom can’t or won’t be tested at some point. </p>
<p>My intention in post #17 was merely to note that the guideline that the omission of “that” will never be tested on the SAT is an over-generalization.</p>
<p>“If you were to clean the fridge out, none of my llamas could find nourishment.”
</p>
<p>Isn’t the first half of the sentence in the subjunctive, “were” being the past subjunctive of “be”?? And isn’t the second half of the sentence in the present tense, instead of the subjunctive??? </p>
<p>Science fiction mirrors the A(apprehensions) and anticipations of society; B(it) reflects C(both) our hopes and fears D(concerning) the advance of technology.</p>
<p>Crazybandit said: “There is no error in the sentence.” But I’m skeptical about Choice D. I’m thinking it’s ambiguous because it could refer to “it” (science fiction) or “hopes and fears”.</p>
<p>The concept of black holes (was first proposed a century ago), (but not until (more) advanced technology became available did the detection of such (occurences) become a reality.</p>
<p>Hector enjoys movies more [than theater going since the latter do] not have the distractions associated with set changes and intermission.
C) than theater since the former do
E) than theater since the former does </p>
<p>The answer is E.
I know this question has already been asked, but if “former” is an adjective that agrees with what it refers to (referent), shouldn’t it be “than theater since the former do”. “Movies” is plural, and should therefore take a plural verb, “do”. Therefore, Choice D has to be correct???</p>
<p>Just want to make sure; there’s no error here, right?
“Despairing that the performance of the chief executive would ever improve, the corporation’s board of directors took decisive action.”</p>
<p>This one has been asked, but not provided an explanation for:
(To stand in) Persepolis in modern Iran and look out, as Darius the first (must have done) at the immense (sweep of fields and mountains) is (to grasp) the vastness of the ancient Persian Empire.(No Error)
Answer: Choice B.
Why is that wrong???</p>
<p>Strong wind, (it having swept almost unchecked over great distances,) was a prime component of the grassland climate.</p>
<p>(This one is not an official question. I changed the official one for the purpose of understanding the rules of grammar.)
So, is this sentence grammatically acceptable? </p>
<p>The reason I ask is that I’ve seen a similar sentence that has been approved as correct:
“An iceberg is produced when a glacier meets the sea, the thickness of the iceberg depending, initially at least, on the thickness of the part of the glacier from which it broke off.”</p>
<p>No definite response was provided for this one:</p>
<p>A(The Magna Carta) and the thirteenth-century Parliament are now B(seen) not as C(a response) to popular protest but as the outcomes of negotiation D(among) the political elite.
Answer: Is it C (because it should be “the response”; parallelism) ??</p>
<p>(No matter) how many times Julie hears her favourite song, whenever (it) is played on the radio, she (will dance around) the room (as if) she has never heard this song before.
Answer: C. But should it become “dances around” or “would dance”??</p>
<p>Magna Carta sentence:
should be “responses” because “and” signals a compound subject and it’s parallel with another compound noun (outcomes) so you know it’s not a “peanut butter and jelly”/“huffing and puffing” false compound.</p>
<p>When preparing to write a research paper, you should gather information from books, periodicals, and the Internet, {and your documenting of sources should be carefully done}.
A and your documenting of sources should be carefully done
B and document your sources carefully
C and you should document your careful sources
D because your sources need to be documented carefully
E yet you need to carefully document your sources</p>
<p>Again, another question asked with no explanation.
Answer is B.</p>
<p>Choice C is incorrect because it changes the meaning of the sentence; “careful sources”.
Choice D is incorrect because the original sentence gives no indication of a causal relationship.
It seems like A, B, and E are also correct. I know this is not a Sentence Identifying Error, so I should choose the “best” one. I chose E because it offered a better transition.</p>
<p>Fernando expected (to have gone) to college in the fall, (but) his score on the scholarship exam was not high enough (to merit) the financial help (he needed).
After verbs of intention, we use the infinitive. “To have gone” is in the infinitive?? If so, then there’s no error, right?</p>
<p>I know the questions are too much, but please help me out. I really want to know the answers to these questions. Thanks.</p>
<p>The unreal future conditionality of the adverbial clause can exist only when the clause is in the subjunctive mood; thats how the tense is formed. Because of the close relationship between if tenses formed in the subjunctive mood and the resultant necessity of the modal auxiliaries in the independent clause, I usually think of could, would and the like as being in the subjunctive mood, so that theres one unifying concept for the whole sentence. Most sources wouldnt assign a mood to modal auxiliaries, though. </p>
<p>The independent clause (none of my llamas could find nourishment) is in the future tense. In some cases distinguishing between the present unreal conditional and the future unreal conditional tenses is arbitrary, because the meaning is potentially the same. In my sentence, though, the form of If you were to clean is typically characteristic of the future variant of the tense. If I wanted to employ the present unreal conditional tense, I may write</p>
<p>If you cleaned the fridge out, none of my llamas could find nourishment.</p>
<p>Now both clauses of the sentence are conveyed as in the present tense. However, the auxiliary could is neutral between the present and future tenses, so we cant see a difference there. </p>
<p>The technical nature of the way this conversation has progressed makes me fear that weve unnecessarily complicated the matter, for the purpose of answering SAT questions. To return to your original question, </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wrote originally that the adverbial clause was in the future unreal conditional tense. Because the form of the verb phrase is not were to be willing to ask, it is not necessarily characteristic of the future unreal conditional tense but possibly the present unreal conditional tense. As it stands, its a matter of interpretation.</p>
<p>But either way, what matters is that we know the if clause is unreal in some way; the subjunctive were signals some difference from reality or expectation, whether in reference to a hypothetical present or a future. Therefore, a modal auxiliary (such as would, could, should, might, or may) ought to appear in the main clause. </p>
<p>So heres an example of how the SAT may test this:</p>
<p>Because it is the most voluminous house they are looking at, if the Smiths were able to buy the mansion on 5th Street, their daughters will each have her own room. No error.</p>
<p>The error is at will because the unreal were able to buy in the if clause mandates the use of a modal auxiliary. Would would work.</p>
<p>I dont think its technically ambiguous, but I see why youd find it unclear. The participle concerning intends to modify hopes and fears. One may mistake that it intends to modify the antecedent science fiction by way of it. However, a participial phrase whose object of modification is the subject of a sentence rather than a noun phrase that it immediately follows ought to be set off by one or two commas. </p>
<p>If the sentence indeed meant to modify it rather than hopes and fears, it would need to be written as such:</p>
<p>Concerning the advance of technology, it reflects both our hopes and fears.</p>
<p>It, concerning the advance of technology, reflects both our hopes and fears.</p>
<p>It reflects both our hopes and fears, concerning the advance of technology.</p>
<p>Because a comma does not appear in the clause and the meaning we can contextually intuit is consistent with modification properly achievable without the use of a comma (i.e., of the adjacent noun phrase hopes and fears), there is no error at (D). </p>
<p>As an additional note, selecting a choice on an Error ID question means not just that the answer choice as written results in erroneousness in the sentence but that a specific substitute for the selected choice would be able to correct the sentence. This substitute will never be merely a comma. Therefore, even if we did believe the sentence meant for concerning to modify it, we would know not to pick (D) anyways, because the correction would merely be to add a comma.</p>