Not one of the potential investors is expected to make an of

[hmgmat]

Not one of the potential investors is expected to make an offer to buy First Interstate Bank until a merger agreement is signed that includes a provision for penalties if the deal were not to be concluded.
A. is expected to make an offer to buy First Interstate Bank until a merger agreement is signed that includes a provision for penalties if the deal were
B. is expected to make an offer for buying First Interstate Bank until they sign a merger agreement including a provision for penalties if the deal was
C. is expected to make an offer to buy First Interstate Bank until a merger agreement be signed by them with a provision for penalties if the deal were
D. are expected to make an offer for buying First Interstate Bank until it signs a merger agreement with a provision for penalties included if the deal was
E. are expected to be making an offer to buy First Interstate Bank until they sign a merger agreement including a provision for penalties if the deal were

A is the OA.
As far as I know, the correct structure is "if X were to do...., Y should/would do...". However, it doesn't fall into the structure I mentioned.
Is there a grammar rule that I miss?
Thanks in advance.

[JonathanSchneider]

It's an interesting point. First of all, we don't have an option for that clause that you want to insert, the part with the "would/should..." We only have the phrase "a provision for penalties." So, we don't have a direct if...then clause here. (We have the "if" part, but not the "then" part.) However, the larger point is that you don't want to get stuck crafting your ideal version of a sentence. We only need to find the best version available here. We still want the "were," because this is the hypothetical subjunctive.

[hmgmat]

so it sounds like a if clause doesn't necessary have to pair with another clause?

[RonPurewal]

so it sounds like a if clause doesn't necessary have to pair with another clause?

if this is an official problem, then it appears that an "if" clause is allowed to act as a modifier. in this sentence, the "if" clause is quite clearly modifying the word "penalties".

remember -
correct answers are correct.

do not question the correctness of correct answers. if this sounds like obvious advice, then good - but your post above belies a fair bit of skepticism about the correctness of the correct answer: "so it sounds like ...?"
it's in the correct answer, so, yes.
your job here is not to figure out whether this construction is allowed, but, rather, to figure out what's going on here (since it clearly is allowed) and to demarcate the particular circumstances under which it's acceptable.

in this case, we see that, at least under circumstances similar to those prevailing in this sentence, an "if" clause can be used as a modifier.
i don't like this any more than you do, but, unfortunately, i don't write the official problems.

[hmgmat]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your reply.

It is an official question and I do agree with you that I have to admit that all official GMAT questions are correct (because I am taking the test).

I obviously didn't express my question clearly. Based on this question, should I write down:
1. an "if" clause can modify any noun (phrase); OR
2. "penalties if [clause]" is just an idiom that I should memorize, and point #1 is incorrect

Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your reply.

It is an official question and I do agree with you that I have to admit that all official GMAT questions are correct (because I am taking the test).

I obviously didn't express my question clearly. Based on this question, should I write down:
1. an "if" clause can modify any noun (phrase); OR
2. "penalties if [clause]" is just an idiom that I should memorize, and point #1 is incorrect

Thanks in advance.

hi -

i wouldn't go so far as to say that an if-clause can modify _any_ noun, but you can at least deduce that if-clauses can modify nouns in the same capacity as the noun in this problem - i.e., nouns describing some sort of potential consequence of something.

so it's not just penalties; you could say "consequences if ...", or "sanctions if the papers are filed late", or "bonuses if your performance exceeds this quota", or any number of other, similar constructions.

[hmgmat]

Thanks a lot.

[JonathanSchneider]

: )

[kramacha1979]

In terms of choosing the correct answer to this SC, Can I go by the following reasoning ?

1st split is/are : Not one <of..> is singular so eliminate D & E

2nd split :They/them used in B and C : Plural pronouns referring to singular investor.

3rd split : were vs was , hypothetical usage, hence need were

OA : A

Thanks

[nikhil_cherian]

Hi,
Could you give a "hypothetical subjunctive for dummies" explanation on why "deal were" is correct & "deal was" is wrong . I think this is my first encounter with " hypo. subjunctive".

Thanks
JC

[nikhil_cherian]

thanks to wikipedia, i got what i needed.
HYPOTHETICAL SUBJUNCTIVE
in grammar, the subjunctive mood is a verb mood typically used in dependent clauses to express wishes, commands, emotion, possibility, judgment, opinion, necessity, or statements that are contrary to fact at present

To express a hypothesis

The past subjunctive is used after the conjunction 'if' in a contrary-to-fact and contrary-to-possibility protasis. For example:

If I were a millionaire, I would buy a sports car.
If he had a car with him, he could drive us there.
If I were a rich man...

In the same vein, the past subjunctive is used following the conjunctions as if and as though to express a contrary-to-fact situation that reality is supposed to resemble:

She looked as though she were going to kill him, but after glaring for a bit, she just stormed off.
He tried to explain it "” as if he knew anything about the subject!

Note that the past subjunctive is sometimes used in expressing situations that are not necessarily contrary to fact:

 ? I am torn; if I were to go with choice A, I would be better off in the short term, but if I were to go with choice B, I might be better off in the long term.
 ? Bring an umbrella; looks as if it were going to rain soon.

[JonathanSchneider]

Kramacha - if you use those first two splits, you don't need the third one. You could have used other splits (the idiom "offer to buy" vs. "offer for buying," for example) as well.

nikhil, let me clarify your two points separately:

You write: "I am torn; if I were to go with choice A, I would be better off in the short term, but if I were to go with choice B, I might be better off in the long term." You are correct that these are not contrary to fact. But neither are they facts themselves. In fact, they are entirely hypothetical; you are debating hypothetical options. Thus, these forms are correct here. You are not implying that you will go with either choice; you are merely stating the options as hypothetical.

You write: "Bring an umbrella; looks as if it were going to rain soon." By saying that it "looks as if," you are predicting something. It would be wise to simply use the present: "It looks as if it is going to rain." We are not implying doubt here. In fact, we are expressing probability. This is not the time for the hypothetical subjunctive.

[kamalsinghy]

Hi Ron,

Sorry for opening old thread. I want to have some takeaways from the correct option A.

"until a merger agreement is signed that includes a provision for penalties if the deal"

In the correct option, please explain the usage of "that". Since "that" is not immediately preceded by noun to which it is referring. Please elaborate on the usage.

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,

Sorry for opening old thread. I want to have some takeaways from the correct option A.

"until a merger agreement is signed that includes a provision for penalties if the deal"

In the correct option, please explain the usage of "that". Since "that" is not immediately preceded by noun to which it is referring. Please elaborate on the usage.

you're thinking of the rule for "which". this rule is not absolute for "that"-clauses.

the issue here is that "is signed" is really short, and the "that"-modifier is really long. therefore, you place the short one first.
it's like the example in this post (which doesn't pertain to "that"-clauses, but is governed by the same idea):
post28610.html#p28610

also see #45 and #50 in the DIAGNOSTIC (not the regular sentence correction section) of the og11 or og12 (doesn't matter, the two editions have exactly the same diagnostic).

[abhasjha]

In contemporary English we do not use the subjunctive in a clause beginning with "until." True, in French one would use the subjunctive after "jusqu'a' ce que," and in Italian one would use the subjunctive after "finche'," but in English we use the subjunctive only in clauses of recommendation, requirement, and request, and only in clauses introduced by "that." The correct response is A.