The company announced that its...

[zhongshanlh]

Hi, Ron and experts, i am confused about the use of would in the correct answer.

i know that "would" have 2 different uses, one is the past tense of "will" ,and the other is conditional.

however, in this question, which one of the two functions should we apply to the would in the correct answer?

IMO, i think would here should be the past tense of will, but the explanation provided by OG says that the use of would here is to show uncertainty.

so ,please clarify me and thank you very much!

[RonPurewal]

zhongshanlh, you are absolutely correct. if the official guide actually says that, then the official guide is wrong.
(the official guide sc answer explanations are actually wrong a non-negligible fraction of the time, say between 5 and 10 percent of the time. still, it's surprising that they would be wrong about something as seemingly clear as this.)

[zhongshanlh]

zhongshanlh, you are absolutely correct. if the official guide actually says that, then the official guide is wrong.
(the official guide sc answer explanations are actually wrong a non-negligible fraction of the time, say between 5 and 10 percent of the time. still, it's surprising that they would be wrong about something as seemingly clear as this.)

thank u so much Ron. with ur confirmation, i feel reassured !

[tim]

glad to hear it!

[aflaamM589]

Sorry to dig this old one.
I cannot pinpoint an error in E.
Compared with OA, E definetly seems inferior/awkward.
But what actually is wrong with E?
expected looks fine compared to had expected in OA.
E also maintains that and that parallellism.
Is will have improved in E an error?
Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

if you can just look at choice E and see that it's clearly worse than the correct answer, then, that's the best way to approach it.
remember—on sc, the hardest ABSOLUTE judgments are often the easiest RELATIVE judgments.

__

in any case—
that tense doesn't work with the given timeframe.

"will have ___ed" is used for completed actions whose impact/effect will be relevant at some point in the future.
e.g.,
By the end of my second year of high school, I will have completed all of the mathematics and science courses that my high school offers.

note that this tense DOESN'T make sense for an action that's actually ongoing in the timeframe described. for that, if it's a future timeframe, you just use the normal future tense (e.g., its business will improve...).

i've never seen a problem that actually REQUIRES an understanding of this tense, so, you don't need to worry too much about studying it.
(if you understand the preceding example, you should be good to go, as far as any understanding you might actually need for this exam.)

[aflaamM589]

Thank you very much Ron,
I see gems in what you write.

[tim]

Glad to hear it

[RonPurewal]

Thank you very much Ron,
I see gems in what you write.

hmm thanks.

[aflaamM589]

Also Ron,
just want to confirm that will vs would in this SC is not a decision point( just a red herring) .
Right?
Thanks in anticipation
Have a nice day

[RonPurewal]

Also Ron,
just want to confirm that will vs would in this SC is not a decision point( just a red herring) .
Right?
Thanks in anticipation
Have a nice day

right, both of those could reasonably work here.

the context would have to be very "special" to make will work, though (the announcement would have to be very recent, so that the upcoming part of the year is still completely in the future). while that's not totally unreasonable, i can't imagine that GMAC would ever actually write a correct sentence with a context like that.

[aflaamM589]

the context would have to be very "special" to make will work, though (the announcement would have to be very recent, so that the upcoming part of the year is still completely in the future). while that's not totally unreasonable, i can't imagine that GMAC would ever actually write a correct sentence with a context like that.

So it means, if one would have to guess,in this kind of a question, going with would, rather than with will can be construed as a safe bet.
right?

[RonPurewal]

no, that was a statement only about the specific context of this one sentence.

[Alok chandraS808]

the problem in the other three choices involves verb tense; the verb "expected" is illogically in parallel with the verb "declined".
this situation is illogical because the parallelism doesn't make sense; we are talking about expectations that were in place prior to the decline in profits, and which ceased to be relevant upon that decline.
this situation -- a state that is ongoing only until another past event, and which is directly related to that past event -- is precisely the kind of situation that requires the past perfect tense, so the sentence should contain "had expected", as in the first two choices.

Dear Ron,

Are the 2 verbs related? The analysts expected but the profits declined. the expectations have no bearing on the profits declining.
For ex: Archaeologists discovered that Mayans had inhabited the place(Wrong - Mayans inhabiting the place has no bearing on the discovery).
Can you please help me understand what I am missing?

TIA,
Alok.

[RonPurewal]

the decline is compared to the expectation. that's definitely a relationship.