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

[RonPurewal]

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.

all true, yes.

[fbi.ak47]

Hi, Ron
could you tell me the reason why option C used be signed?
What' s the point?



Thanks in advance!

[tim]

Ah, a good question! It's always wise to ask yourself why the GMAT included the wrong choices it did, because that's a good way to avoid traps in the future. In this case, i think they used "be signed" to trick you into thinking of the command subjunctive. Of course, that's not what C was all about, which is one of the reasons why C is wrong..

[Mymisc]

I have two questions on this problem:

1. singular or plural verb: I want to know whether "Not one of plural" is a similar case of "None" as in SANAM, i.e. the verb can go either singular or plural, or we must use singular after "Not one of plural noun", therefore we can eliminate D/E right away?

In additon, I want confirm:
"No letters" must use a plural verb
"No one" must use a singular verb
"None of plural noun" flexible

2. Is there any indicator other than "if" calls for the subjunctive as in "if the deal were not to be concluded"?

[mschwrtz]

1. singular or plural verb: I want to know whether "Not one of plural" is a similar case of "None" as in SANAM, i.e. the verb can go either singular or plural, or we must use singular after "Not one of plural noun", therefore we can eliminate D/E right away?

Not one is singular. None actually comes from not one (well, its ancestor nan came from ne an, anyway), but they work differently here.


In additon, I want confirm:
"No letters" must use a plural verb
Right
"No one" must use a singular verb
Right
"None of plural noun" flexible
Right

2. Is there any indicator other than "if" calls for the subjunctive"?

Sure. The most common other such indicators are as if and as though. You can also go straight into the subjunctive without any of those indicators, Were I inclined to bet on football, I would take the Raiders plus the spread.

[Mymisc]

Thank you!

If "Not one" is a similar case to "none", why doesn't "Not one of investors" use a plural? -- "None of investors" needs a plural verb right?

One split in ACs is were vs was, how should I determine that this sentence calls for the subjunctive (were)? Any indicators in this sentence I can rely on?

[RonPurewal]

Thank you!

If "Not one" is a similar case to "none", why doesn't "Not one of investors" use a plural? -- "None of investors" needs a plural verb right?

"none" can actually go either way, but the preferred usage of "none" is singular.

One split in ACs is were vs was, how should I determine that this sentence calls for the subjunctive (were)? Any indicators in this sentence I can rely on?

when "if" is used in a hypothetical situation, the subjunctive is preferred.
try googling "hypothetical subjunctive" for much more detail than we could possibly include here.

[violetwind]

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.

Hi Ron, I don't think the "if" clause is modifying "penalties", instead it modifies the action "include", as a adverbial modifer, as it's a discription of a condition. Am I right?

Another question is :Is the "they" in choice B right in usage?
I know B should use "were" as the last word instead of "was" and the offer phrace should be "offer to do" not"offer for doing".

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron, I don't think the "if" clause is modifying "penalties", instead it modifies the action "include", as a adverbial modifer, as it's a discription of a condition. Am I right?

nope -- that interpretation doesn't make sense; it implies that the provision is not in the agreement at all unless the merger fails.

the provision is a material part of the agreement -- it's in there, regardless of what happens with the merger. (this is the only reasonable interpretation, because the agreement is drawn up prior to the merger talks.)
the only thing that is actually dependent on the situation described by "if" is the penalty, hence my description.

Another question is :Is the "they" in choice B right in usage?

nope -- it doesn't make sense. the only eligible noun is "potential investors", but that's just not true -- the agreement is not signed by all of the potential investors. (the agreement is only signed by the bank itself and whichever investor actually goes through with the contract.)

[violetwind]

Got it~Thank you Ron!

Hi Ron, I don't think the "if" clause is modifying "penalties", instead it modifies the action "include", as a adverbial modifer, as it's a discription of a condition. Am I right?

nope -- that interpretation doesn't make sense; it implies that the provision is not in the agreement at all unless the merger fails.

the provision is a material part of the agreement -- it's in there, regardless of what happens with the merger. (this is the only reasonable interpretation, because the agreement is drawn up prior to the merger talks.)
the only thing that is actually dependent on the situation described by "if" is the penalty, hence my description.

Another question is :Is the "they" in choice B right in usage?

nope -- it doesn't make sense. the only eligible noun is "potential investors", but that's just not true -- the agreement is not signed by all of the potential investors. (the agreement is only signed by the bank itself and whichever investor actually goes through with the contract.)

[tim]

glad to hear it!

[shengfangqiji33]

hi,ron,i have two questions here.

i know the OA is A,but i can't understand what the sentence's meaning,if the deal were not to be concluded,who will pay for the penalties,should the bank or the investor pay for the penalties?

besides,the pron "they" in B is not right in
useage,you explain it that the agreement is only signed by the bank itself and whichever investor actually goes through with the contract.but if more than one investors go through the contracr with the bank,is the pron "they" is still wrong in useage?

thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

hi,ron,i have two questions here.

i know the OA is A,but i can't understand what the sentence's meaning,if the deal were not to be concluded,who will pay for the penalties,should the bank or the investor pay for the penalties?

the most apposite way to respond to this question is to note that you are not required to make this distinction in any of the five choices.

besides,the pron "they" in B is not right in
useage,you explain it that the agreement is only signed by the bank itself and whichever investor actually goes through with the contract.but if more than one investors go through the contracr with the bank,is the pron "they" is still wrong in useage?

thanks in advance.

the pronoun is still wrong in that answer choice, because there is no plural noun to which it can point. there is only "not one of the investors" and "first interstate bank", both of which are singular.

[kopi2266]

this question is definitely not an official gmat question, thus I don't completely trust the answer.


Question I would like to ask is for option (A), "until a merger agreement is signed that includes a provision for penalties if the deal were"

Can 'that' describe the merger agreement?
I believe 'that' describes "the signing of the merger agreement"

For example,
A file is created.
A file is created that helps users to identify errors. (certainly seems wrong and extremely weird in my opinion)

A file that helps users to identify errors is created.(correct)

Correct me if i am wrong. Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

Question I would like to ask is for option (A), "until a merger agreement is signed that includes a provision for penalties if the deal were"

Can 'that' describe the merger agreement?
I believe 'that' describes "the signing of the merger agreement"

nah, this kind of thing can work.

For example,
A file is created.

A file is created that helps users to identify errors. (certainly seems wrong and extremely weird in my opinion)

A file that helps users to identify errors is created.(correct)

the second of these would actually be acceptable.

basically, the idea is that the usual construction is "an X that does Y was created".
however, if "Y" is long enough, then the sentence will become essentially unreadable in this form. in that case, the convention is to invert the order of "that does Y" and "was created".
in the example you've provided here, the third sentence seems to be right on the cusp of being difficult to read, so either the second or the third could be considered acceptable.

--

at the extreme, take the following sentence from a new york times article:

... an agreement was signed that stopped the North’s plutonium production until we abandoned the deal eight years later...

in this case, it should be clear that we have to invert the order, since an agreement that stopped the North’s plutonium production until we abandoned the deal eight years later was signed is impossible to understand unless you read it many, many times.

(source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/opini ... s-yet.html)