The federal rules aimed at protecting human subjects of

[Guest79]

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

[ac]

i guess C. What is OA?

[Guest]

The answer should be E. 'Would' should be used when a sentence talks about the future in past tense. In this sentence 'was' at the end of the sentence suggests that the sentence is speaking in past tense rather than the present. Hence, C should be incorrect and E should be the correct answer.

[StaceyKoprince]

"established to ensure that X and Y" - so those two things should be parallel. Eliminate A, B, D.

"____ evaluate the experiment before it was conducted." As our guest above mentions, this necessitates "would." Eliminate C.

E is correct.

[Sputnik]

"established to ensure that X and Y" - so those two things should be parallel. Eliminate A, B, D.

Hi Stacey..


Why is B not || ... is it because of the MUST ...

[rfernandez]

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."

[domleon]

hi
can someone tell me, if warned about is a correct idiom?

cheers

[NZOMNIAC]

Why is C wrong even though it uses the idiom established to ensure that X and Y

[Guest]

I am sorry I got why C is wromg...its wrong because of the tense

Actually I felt the first part was in subjunctive mood thats y I chose C..

[RonPurewal]

hi
can someone tell me, if warned about is a correct idiom?

cheers

"warned of" is definitely more in line with formal convention, although i wouldn't confidently declare "warned about" to be actually wrong. still, "warned about" is more colloquial, so i'd avoid picking it unless grammatical issues clearly steer you away from all the choices involving "warned of".

[eyunni]

Instructors, I need some help here with a doubt relevant to this SC.

Here is my doubt in terms of an example:

"The coach requires that players pass the fitness test before the important game." - present tense and subjunctive

How do I change the sentence to past tense in subjunctive mood?

The coach required that players pass the fitness test before the important game OR
The coach required that players would have to pass the fitness test before the important game...

The point I am trying to understand is how to the subjunctive mood in past tense using 'would'

I also don't understand whether the above SC in its original form is subjunctive. Please clarify.

[RonPurewal]

The coach required that players pass the fitness test before the important game OR
The coach required that players would have to pass the fitness test before the important game...

the first of these is correct.

if 'would' appears in a sentence whose principal action is in the past tense, it's almost always functioning as a past-tense form of 'will'.
for instance:
i know that she will succeed. -- present-tense principal action (i know)
translates into the past tense as...
i knew that she would succeed. -- past-tense principal action (i knew)

The point I am trying to understand is how to the subjunctive mood in past tense using 'would'

if 'would' appears in the sort of context referenced above, it's not actually a subjunctive construction at all.

if 'would' is used as a subjunctive, then it's so used more often in a sentence about hypotheticals:
i would drive there if i had a car.
these appear to be past-tense verbs, but they're really not; they're hypothetical subjunctives. the speaker/writer is declaring intentions for what he or she would do if he or she had a car in the present.

I also don't understand whether the above SC in its original form is subjunctive. Please clarify.

it's not. the correct answer uses the indicative (normal form) of the verb.

the type of subjunctive you're thinking about, called the 'command subjunctive', is generally limited to requests, demands, stipulations, requirements, entreaties, etc. ensuring or verifying that something happens, as in the sentence here, doesn't fall into this category.

[aps_asks]

Sorry Instructors for the asking question that is addressed...I edited the post

[Borja]

I had also picked C, but on reviewing it I have seen that "an independent panel" (singular) does not match "evaluate" (should be evaluates) instead... This way should be easily eliminated too, right??

[tim]

that's right..