<p>Greenland's vast glaciers A(contain) B(so much) frozen water that should they melt, sea levels C(would rise) worldwide, D(altering) coastlines everywhere. No error </p>
<p>I got this answer right but I don't exactly know why it is no error. How could C be right? Thank you!</p>
<p>wait did you say the answer was C or E?</p>
<p>The answer is E, but My question is how C is grammatically correct?</p>
<p>Bump please help me out with this question.</p>
<p>“should they melt” is analogous to “if they melt”. This is a hypothetical situation … and an unlikely one at that. It’s a common example of the “second conditional”. The second conditional requires the present conditional tense – i.e. would rise.</p>
<p>See, for example:</p>
<p>[ELC</a> Study Zone: Second Conditional](<a href=“http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/elc/studyzone/410/grammar/2cond.htm]ELC”>Second Conditional | Continuing Studies at UVic)</p>
<p>Google “grammar second conditional” or “present conditional tense” for alternate explanations.</p>
<p>Wow thank you @Fogcity! I didn’t know that “should they melt” is analogous to " if they melt "</p>
<p>I am sorry for bumping this, but I am struggling to understand fogcity’s explanation. In the given link it says:
“If” clause: if + subject + simple past verb*
Main clause: subject + would + verb</p>
<p>However, the SAT questions, which, according him, is equivalent to “if they melt” would be: “if + subject + simple PRESENT verb”. So this whole explanation doesn’t make sense. If it is in the present it should be “sea levels WILL rise”. Unless he meant that it is actually equivalent to “if they meltED”, which would be in the simple past form but actually describing the present.</p>
<p>Note: I am trying to understand. Do not take whatever I wrote for granted.</p>
<p>Any help?</p>