Condinal... if..,..

**kautilya_bharat** · 06-10-2005, 04:10 PM

I agree with Knowledgeseker's view except on B & D.

I got from Barron's GRE

if..were.. is for impossible results or contrary to fact situations.
if (past tense) is used for possible results of future, which are not certain. although verb is past but it is for future. (very special and hard to separate from contrary to fact)

and it is true what is thought is not impossible but yes it has very less possibility.

Hence D;

**800Bob** · 06-10-2005, 04:46 PM

If + were is used to express contrary-to-fact in the present:

If I were a rich man, I would buy a Mercedes. (I am not a rich man.)

If + were to is used to express an unlikely condition in the future, something that could happen but probably won't:

If I were to win the lottery, I would buy a Mercedes. (It is unlikely that I will win the lottery, but it's possible.)

If + was is very rare, used only to express a likely condition in the past, something that may well have happened, but whether it did happen is unknown to the speaker:

If John was at the party last night, he probably saw my sister. (John may well have been at the party last night, but I don't know for sure.)

The ice of Greenland and Antarctica have certainly not yet melted -- we know that -- and so was is wrong. The sentence aims to say that in the unlikely event that the ice melts..., and so were to is correct. The answer is B.

**buntycityus** · 06-10-2005, 06:09 PM

Here the question talks about fiction. This is the subjunctive case.

If - Were - would is the correct combination

Thus B

**dib** · 06-10-2005, 06:53 PM

In this example, it seems that B is the correct choice. However, if I modify the original sentence as
"If the ice of Greenland and Anartica were to melt, the sea level would rise at least 100 feet" - is that a correct sentence ?

My question is about the meaning of "were" here...If I had said "If the ice of Greenland was to melt, the sea level would rise at least 100 feet", is that be a correct sentence ?

I am trying to find out whether "were" is occuring due to the presence of "if" or due to "Greenland and Antarctica" ?

**amitd** · 06-10-2005, 11:33 PM

I can't buy D as the answer. Only A and B come close. B is concise and hence the correct choice.

**kautilya_bharat** · 07-11-2005, 01:51 AM

hi 800Bob,

what is your source of information regarding

If + were to is used to express an unlikely condition in the future, something that could happen but probably won't:
<I always thought that were [subjunctive is for impossible situations even text books say that>
If + was is very rare, used only to express a likely condition in the past, something that may well have happened, but whether it did happen is unknown to the speaker:
<TOFEL Barron say that If + past is for results of future with less certainity>