The federal rules aimed at protecting human subjects of

[Suapplle]

insructors, please help,are the "ensure" and "must" redundant?thanks!

[RonPurewal]

insructors, please help,are the "ensure" and "must" redundant?thanks!

Yes.

[Suapplle]

insructors, please help,are the "ensure" and "must" redundant?thanks!

Yes.

thanks a lot~

[thanghnvn]

Source - GMAT prep

The federal rules aimed at protecting human subjects of medical experiments were established to ensure that patients must be warned of potential risks and an independent panel would evaluate the experiment before it was conducted.

(A) Same
(B) must be warned of potential risks anf that an independent panel
(C) are warned about potential risks and that an independent panel
(D) will be warned about potential risks and an independent panel would
(E) would be warned of potential risks and that an independent panel would

hard question.

the time in main clause is in the past, so we need past tense in all subordinate clauses. so, "are" in C is out.

"before it was conducted" is time subordinate clause, which also takes the future time though it is is present time. consider

I will meet you when you go there

inhere, "you go there" is also in the future though it is in present tense.

because the meaning is the focus of sc, test of tense must be important and typical of gmat because we have to understand the meaning to use tense correctly

tense, very hard.

the problem is we can understand the explanation of tense but we hardly get the question right. How to solve this problem? pls help.

[RonPurewal]

Choice E is actually the only option with both verbs in the same tense. So, if you realize that you don't want to switch tenses here (because the two things are simultaneous goals), then, boom, you're done.

[RonPurewal]

the time in main clause is in the past, so we need past tense in all subordinate clauses. so, "are" in C is out.

Not true in all cases. As always, you have to think about context
.
Yesterday, James predicted that Brazil will win next year's World Cup.
--> Can't have "would" here, because next year's WC hasn't happened yet.

[samwong]

"will be warned" is in FUTURE tense with passive voice.
"would be warned " is in PAST tense with passive voice.

What is the difference between these two PRESENT tense "are warned" and "be warned"? (assuming that "must" is omitted since "ensure" means the same thing)

Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

"Be" is not a present-tense verb. The present-tense forms of that verb are is and are.

To use "be", you'd need it as part of "to be", or else as part of one of those command/request type situations (e.g., Your contract requires that you be present at all meetings.)

Other than that, you're not going to see "be", except in a few special constructions that are, essentially, "to be" with the "to" omitted (e.g., To help the dog be more quiet, we got her a chew toy.), or in things that aren't tested, such as commands (Be quiet!).

[samwong]

1) The federal rules aimed at protecting human subjects of medical experiments were established to ensure that patients must be warned of potential risks and an independent panel would evaluate the experiment before it was conducted.

(A) Same
(B) must be warned of potential risks and that an independent panel
(C) are warned about potential risks and that an independent panel
(D) will be warned about potential risks and an independent panel would
(E) would be warned of potential risks and that an independent panel would

OA:E

2) A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.

(A) same
(B) reduced the phosphate amount that municipalities had been dumping
(C) reduces the phosphate amount municipalities have been allowed to dump
(D) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump
(E) reduces the amount of phosphates allowed for dumping by municipalities

OA:D

I have a question about the tense for these two SC.

Both SC talk about something in the past:
SC#1 "were established"
SC#2 "1972"

"Federal Rules" in SC#1 is comparable to "agreement" in SC#2.

So why does SC#1 requires past tense: "would be warned" and "would evaluate"? (Thus, C is wrong because it is in present tense.) But SC#2 requires present tense: "are allowed to dump."

I know that "would" can be used to describe a hypothetical situation or as the past tense of "will". So my guess is that in the SC#2, the sentence will still be correct if I changed "are allowed to dump" to "would be allowed to dump."

Thank you.

[jlucero]

1) The federal rules aimed at protecting human subjects of medical experiments were established to ensure that patients must be warned of potential risks and an independent panel would evaluate the experiment before it was conducted.

(A) Same
(B) must be warned of potential risks and that an independent panel
(C) are warned about potential risks and that an independent panel
(D) will be warned about potential risks and an independent panel would
(E) would be warned of potential risks and that an independent panel would

OA:E

2) A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.

(A) same
(B) reduced the phosphate amount that municipalities had been dumping
(C) reduces the phosphate amount municipalities have been allowed to dump
(D) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump
(E) reduces the amount of phosphates allowed for dumping by municipalities

OA:D

I have a question about the tense for these two SC.

Both SC talk about something in the past:
SC#1 "were established"
SC#2 "1972"

"Federal Rules" in SC#1 is comparable to "agreement" in SC#2.

So why does SC#1 requires past tense: "would be warned" and "would evaluate"? (Thus, C is wrong because it is in present tense.) But SC#2 requires present tense: "are allowed to dump."

I know that "would" can be used to describe a hypothetical situation or as the past tense of "will". So my guess is that in the SC#2, the sentence will still be correct if I changed "are allowed to dump" to "would be allowed to dump."

Thank you.

Correct. The difference in the 2 meanings is that one is hypothetical and uses "would be". However, SC #2 would only work with "would be" IF the dumping wasn't a consistent process. This would require us to know whether dumping was a hypothetical issue, or a constant issue. By not giving us that option, the GMAT eliminates us having to decipher the true meaning.

[aditya8062]

hi RON
i some how feel that in this sentence we have used "would" because the sentence talks about something in the past by using "were established" and is intending to talk about future from "past" point of view

The federal rules aimed at protecting human subjects of medical experiments were established to ensure that patients would be warned of potential risks and that an independent panel would evaluate the experiment before it was conducted.

is my reasoning correct ?
thanks

[RonPurewal]

hi RON
i some how feel that in this sentence we have used "would" because the sentence talks about something in the past by using "were established" and is intending to talk about future from "past" point of view

The federal rules aimed at protecting human subjects of medical experiments were established to ensure that patients would be warned of potential risks and that an independent panel would evaluate the experiment before it was conducted.

is my reasoning correct ?
thanks

Yes.

Note that there's only one verb that actually places the context in the past"”was conducted.

If the laws are still in force"”and still adhere to their original purpose"”it would also make sense (and would be better, actually) to write:
The laws were established to ensure that patients are warned about xxxx before an experiment is conducted.

[TooLong150]

B would certainly be more parallel if both verbs featured "must," but as an earlier poster explained, the bigger issue is that we need "would" with these verbs. Also, "must" is redundant given that we have the verb "ensure."

Experts, I still don't understand how "that patients must be warned of potential risks" and "that an independent panel evaluate" are not parallel especially since both contain clauses starting with the same word, "that" in this case. Also, the above statement by "rfernandez" doesn't say that B is not parallel, but that it could be more parallel. Can you explain the error in my thinking? Thanks in advance!

[RonPurewal]

The following pairs are properly parallel:

these guys must be warned
those guys must evaluate

these guys be warned
those guys evaluate

One blue, one red = non-parallel.

[RonPurewal]

Also, NB: In any context in which either of the red things works, the blue things won't. And vice versa.

I.e., if the requirements for ...that x BE ... (I forget what this is called) are satisfied, then "normal" verbs CANNOT be used. They're mutually exclusive.