A recent court decision has qualified a 1998 ruling that workers cannot be laid off if they have been given reason to believe that their jobs will be safe, provided that their performance remains satisfactory.
if they have been given reason to believe that their jobs will
if they are given reason for believing that their jobs would still
having been given reason for believing that their jobs would
having been given reason to believe their jobs to
given reason to believe that their jobs will still
Careful, vp101. The problem with B can't be "given reason," since that is used in A, too!
The issue is with "would," but this is a little tricky. For simpler clauses, it's easy: we don't use both "if" and "would" to mark the same hypothetical event. Rather, when using "if," we follow up with "would" to show the consequence:
If my car were stolen, I would be upset.
However, if our hypothetical/conditional has more than one action in it (as in the original Q), "would" may be appropriate:
If I thought that you would believe me, I'd tell you the whole story.
So what's the difference between this and the original? You might notice that here we're using what looks like past tense ("thought"), while in A and B we're using present perfect and present, respectively. Why the difference? My example is a hypothetical (subjunctive), while the original is a simple conditional. With conditionals, we don't even use "would" for the consequence:
If Karen's sandwich falls on the floor, she will still eat it. (It's a really good sandwich.)
Since the choices here are conditional and not subjunctive, we need to leave "would" out of the sentence entirely.
转自:https://gmatclub.com/forum/a-recent-court-decision-has-qualified-a-1998-ruling-that-workers-canno-207805.html#p1593308
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论