ERROR in SC 4th Edition GUIDe Page: 111

[anoo.anand]

Hi

This is with rference to Page 111 , in Sentence Correction STRATEGY Guide.

it says that the THe usual sequence are EITHER , PRESENT + FUTURE OR PAST + CONDITIONAL

THEN the LAST Example given is:

WRONG:: The scientist BELIEVED that the machine WOULD BE wonderful.

............................... past................................future


is the above right or wrong ?

If it is right then ::

"would have" is reserved for sentences that describe the hypothetical alternate outcome of some past event. you use the past perfect in the hypothesis, and "would have" in the consequent.
if she had told me about the traffic delays, i would have left home earlier.
(note: this is a form that most native speakers will SAY incorrectly; most native speakers will incorrectly use "would have" in BOTH parts of this sentence.)

[Ben Ku]

This Strategy Guide is correct. This is an example of the Past + Conditional construction.

The Future Tense is "will + verb." "He will study tomorrow." "The ball will be thrown when the whistle blows." These actions take place in the future.

The Conditional Tense is "would + verb." It's like the hypothetical future from the past. "He would have left the game."

[pradeepchandy]

its mentioned as an error here
http://www.manhattangmat.com/errata-sc-4ed.cfm

[tim]

Thanks Pradeep. The errata sheet is correct. i think Ben meant to say that the sentence itself is correct, and the errata sheet makes it clear that the sentence is actually correct as written..

[pradeepchandy]

Thanks Pradeep. The errata sheet is correct. i think Ben meant to say that the sentence itself is correct, and the errata sheet makes it clear that the sentence is actually correct as written..

Just to be clear the sentence is incorrectly printed in the book

the text -

"Wrong: The scientist BELIEVED that the machine WOULD BE wonderful"

should be replaced with


"Wrong: The scientist BELIEVED that the machine WILL BE wonderful."


on page 111

to ensure that grammar laws are not violated

[tim]

i think that's what i said. as written, the sentence should not be labeled as "wrong" because it is actually grammatically correct. this is the error that is explained more fully in the errata sheet..