Everything (be) . . . . . fine.a)will beb)would bec)could bed)might beCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

GMAT Exam > GMAT Questions > Everything (be) . . . . . fine.a)will beb)wou...

Everything (be) . . . . . fine.

a)
will be
b)
would be
c)
could be
d)
might be

Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

Everything (be) . . . . . fine.a)will beb)would bec)could bed)might be...

To determine the correct form of the verb in the given sentence, we need to understand the context and the tense of the sentence. The sentence states that "Everything (be) fine," which implies that the speaker is referring to the future.
The correct form of the verb in this case would be "will be" because it indicates a future event or state. The other options provided, such as "would be," "could be," and "might be," do not accurately convey the future tense.
Answer:
The correct answer is A. will be.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Similar GMAT Doubts

Directions: Read the Passage carefully and answer the question as follow.Archaeology as a profession faces two major prob-lems. First, it is the poorest of the poor. Only paltrysums are available for excavating and even less is avail-able for publishing the results and preserving the sites(5) once excavated. Yet archaeologists deal with pricelessobjects every day. Second, there is the problem of illegalexcavation, resulting in museum-quality pieces beingsold to the highest bidder.I would like to make an outrageous suggestion that(10) would at one stroke provide funds for archaeology andreduce the amount of illegal digging. I would proposethat scientific archeological expeditions and govern-mental authorities sell excavated artifacts on the openmarket. Such sales would provide substantial funds for(15) the excavation and preservation of archaeological sitesand the publication of results. At the same time, theywould break the illegal excavator’s grip on the market,thereby decreasing the inducement to engage in illegalactivities.(20) You might object that professionals excavate toacquire knowledge, not money. Moreover, ancient arti-facts are part of our global cultural heritage, whichshould be available for all to appreciate, not sold to thehighest bidder. I agree. Sell nothing that has unique(25) artistic merit or scientific value. But, you might reply,everything that comes our of the ground has scientificvalue. Here we part company. Theoretically, you may becorrect in claiming that every artifact has potential scien-tific value. Practically, you are wrong.(30)I refer to the thousands of pottery vessels and ancientlamps that are essentially duplicates of one another. Inone small excavation in Cyprus, archaeologists recentlyuncovered 2,000 virtually indistinguishable small jugs ina single courtyard, Even precious royal seal impressions(35) known as/melekh handles have been found in abun-dance---more than 4,000 examples so far.The basements of museums are simply not largeenough to store the artifacts that are likely to be discov-ered in the future. There is not enough money even to(40) catalogue the finds; as a result, they cannot be foundagain and become as inaccessible as if they had neverbeen discovered. Indeed, with the help of a computer,sold artifacts could be more accessible than are thepieces stored in bulging museum basements. Prior to(45) sale, each could be photographed and the list of thepurchasers could be maintained on the computer Apurchaser could even be required to agree to return thepiece if it should become needed for scientific purposes.It would be unrealistic to suggest that illegal digging(50) would stop if artifacts were sold on the open market.But the demand for the clandestine product would besubstantially reduced. Who would want an unmarkedpot when another was available whose provenance wasknown, and that was dated stratigraphically by theprofessional archaeologist who excavated it?Q.The author anticipates which of the following initial objections to the adoption of his proposal?

View answer

Directions: Read the Passage carefully and answer the question as follow.Archaeology as a profession faces two major prob-lems. First, it is the poorest of the poor. Only paltrysums are available for excavating and even less is avail-able for publishing the results and preserving the sites(5) once excavated. Yet archaeologists deal with pricelessobjects every day. Second, there is the problem of illegalexcavation, resulting in museum-quality pieces beingsold to the highest bidder.I would like to make an outrageous suggestion that(10) would at one stroke provide funds for archaeology andreduce the amount of illegal digging. I would proposethat scientific archeological expeditions and govern-mental authorities sell excavated artifacts on the openmarket. Such sales would provide substantial funds for(15) the excavation and preservation of archaeological sitesand the publication of results. At the same time, theywould break the illegal excavator’s grip on the market,thereby decreasing the inducement to engage in illegalactivities.(20) You might object that professionals excavate toacquire knowledge, not money. Moreover, ancient arti-facts are part of our global cultural heritage, whichshould be available for all to appreciate, not sold to thehighest bidder. I agree. Sell nothing that has unique(25) artistic merit or scientific value. But, you might reply,everything that comes our of the ground has scientificvalue. Here we part company. Theoretically, you may becorrect in claiming that every artifact has potential scien-tific value. Practically, you are wrong.(30)I refer to the thousands of pottery vessels and ancientlamps that are essentially duplicates of one another. Inone small excavation in Cyprus, archaeologists recentlyuncovered 2,000 virtually indistinguishable small jugs ina single courtyard, Even precious royal seal impressions(35) known as/melekh handles have been found in abun-dance---more than 4,000 examples so far.The basements of museums are simply not largeenough to store the artifacts that are likely to be discov-ered in the future. There is not enough money even to(40) catalogue the finds; as a result, they cannot be foundagain and become as inaccessible as if they had neverbeen discovered. Indeed, with the help of a computer,sold artifacts could be more accessible than are thepieces stored in bulging museum basements. Prior to(45) sale, each could be photographed and the list of thepurchasers could be maintained on the computer Apurchaser could even be required to agree to return thepiece if it should become needed for scientific purposes.It would be unrealistic to suggest that illegal digging(50) would stop if artifacts were sold on the open market.But the demand for the clandestine product would besubstantially reduced. Who would want an unmarkedpot when another was available whose provenance wasknown, and that was dated stratigraphically by theprofessional archaeologist who excavated it?Q.The author implies that all of the following statements about duplicate artifacts are true EXCEPT

View answer

Directions: Read the Passage carefully and answer the question as follow.Archaeology as a profession faces two major prob-lems. First, it is the poorest of the poor. Only paltrysums are available for excavating and even less is avail-able for publishing the results and preserving the sites(5) once excavated. Yet archaeologists deal with pricelessobjects every day. Second, there is the problem of illegalexcavation, resulting in museum-quality pieces beingsold to the highest bidder.I would like to make an outrageous suggestion that(10) would at one stroke provide funds for archaeology andreduce the amount of illegal digging. I would proposethat scientific archeological expeditions and govern-mental authorities sell excavated artifacts on the openmarket. Such sales would provide substantial funds for(15) the excavation and preservation of archaeological sitesand the publication of results. At the same time, theywould break the illegal excavator’s grip on the market,thereby decreasing the inducement to engage in illegalactivities.(20) You might object that professionals excavate toacquire knowledge, not money. Moreover, ancient arti-facts are part of our global cultural heritage, whichshould be available for all to appreciate, not sold to thehighest bidder. I agree. Sell nothing that has unique(25) artistic merit or scientific value. But, you might reply,everything that comes our of the ground has scientificvalue. Here we part company. Theoretically, you may becorrect in claiming that every artifact has potential scien-tific value. Practically, you are wrong.(30)I refer to the thousands of pottery vessels and ancientlamps that are essentially duplicates of one another. Inone small excavation in Cyprus, archaeologists recentlyuncovered 2,000 virtually indistinguishable small jugs ina single courtyard, Even precious royal seal impressions(35) known as/melekh handles have been found in abun-dance---more than 4,000 examples so far.The basements of museums are simply not largeenough to store the artifacts that are likely to be discov-ered in the future. There is not enough money even to(40) catalogue the finds; as a result, they cannot be foundagain and become as inaccessible as if they had neverbeen discovered. Indeed, with the help of a computer,sold artifacts could be more accessible than are thepieces stored in bulging museum basements. Prior to(45) sale, each could be photographed and the list of thepurchasers could be maintained on the computer Apurchaser could even be required to agree to return thepiece if it should become needed for scientific purposes.It would be unrealistic to suggest that illegal digging(50) would stop if artifacts were sold on the open market.But the demand for the clandestine product would besubstantially reduced. Who would want an unmarkedpot when another was available whose provenance wasknown, and that was dated stratigraphically by theprofessional archaeologist who excavated it?Q.The author’s argument concerning the effect of the official sale of duplicate artifacts on illegal excavation is based on which of the following assumptions?

View answer

Experts anticipate that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) will have doubled by the end of the twenty-first century. It is known that CO2 can contribute to global warming by (5) trapping solar energy that is being reradiated as heat from the Earth’s surface. However, some research has suggested that elevated CO2 levels could enhance the photosynthetic rates of plants, resulting in a lush world of agricultural abundance, and that this CO2 (10) fertilization effect might eventually decrease the rate of global warming. The increased vegetation in such an environment could be counted on to draw more CO2 from the atmosphere. The level of CO2 would thus increase at a lower rate than many experts have (15) predicted.However, while a number of recent studies confirm that plant growth would be generally enhanced in an atmosphere rich in CO2, they also suggest that increased CO2 would differentially increase the growth (20) rate of different species of plants, which could eventually result in decreased agricultural yields. Certain important crops such as corn and sugarcane that currently have higher photosynthetic efficiencies than other plants may lose that edge in an atmosphere (25) rich in CO2. Patterson and Flint have shown that these important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds. Such differences in growth rates between plant species could also alter ecosystem stability. Studies have (30) shown that within rangeland regions, for example, a weedy grass grows much better with plentiful CO2 than do three other grasses. Because this weedy grass predisposes land to burning, its potential increase may lead to greater numbers of and more severe wildfires in (35) future rangeland communities.It is clear that the CO2 fertilization effect does not guarantee the lush world of agricultural abundance that once seemed likely, but what about the potential for the increased uptake of CO2 to decrease the rate of global (40) warming? Some studies suggest that the changes accompanying global warming will not improve the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2. Billings’ simulation of global warming conditions in wet tundra grasslands showed that the level of CO2 (45) actually increased. Plant growth did increase under these conditions because of warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels. But as the permafrost melted, more peat (accumulated dead plant material) began to decompose. This process in turn liberated more CO2 to (50) the atmosphere. Billings estimated that if summer temperatures rose four degrees Celsius, the tundra would liberate 50 percent more CO2 than it does currently. In a warmer world, increased plant growth, which could absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, would (55) not compensate for this rapid increase in decomposition rates. This observation is particularly important because high-latitude habitats such as the tundra are expected to experience the greatest temperature increase.The passage suggests that Patterson and Flint would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about increased levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere?

View answer

Experts anticipate that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) will have doubled by the end of the twenty-first century. It is known that CO2 can contribute to global warming by (5) trapping solar energy that is being reradiated as heat from the Earth’s surface. However, some research has suggested that elevated CO2 levels could enhance the photosynthetic rates of plants, resulting in a lush world of agricultural abundance, and that this CO2 (10) fertilization effect might eventually decrease the rate of global warming. The increased vegetation in such an environment could be counted on to draw more CO2 from the atmosphere. The level of CO2 would thus increase at a lower rate than many experts have (15) predicted.However, while a number of recent studies confirm that plant growth would be generally enhanced in an atmosphere rich in CO2, they also suggest that increased CO2 would differentially increase the growth (20) rate of different species of plants, which could eventually result in decreased agricultural yields. Certain important crops such as corn and sugarcane that currently have higher photosynthetic efficiencies than other plants may lose that edge in an atmosphere (25) rich in CO2. Patterson and Flint have shown that these important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds. Such differences in growth rates between plant species could also alter ecosystem stability. Studies have (30) shown that within rangeland regions, for example, a weedy grass grows much better with plentiful CO2 than do three other grasses. Because this weedy grass predisposes land to burning, its potential increase may lead to greater numbers of and more severe wildfires in (35) future rangeland communities.It is clear that the CO2 fertilization effect does not guarantee the lush world of agricultural abundance that once seemed likely, but what about the potential for the increased uptake of CO2 to decrease the rate of global (40) warming? Some studies suggest that the changes accompanying global warming will not improve the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2. Billings’ simulation of global warming conditions in wet tundra grasslands showed that the level of CO2 (45) actually increased. Plant growth did increase under these conditions because of warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels. But as the permafrost melted, more peat (accumulated dead plant material) began to decompose. This process in turn liberated more CO2 to (50) the atmosphere. Billings estimated that if summer temperatures rose four degrees Celsius, the tundra would liberate 50 percent more CO2 than it does currently. In a warmer world, increased plant growth, which could absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, would (55) not compensate for this rapid increase in decomposition rates. This observation is particularly important because high-latitude habitats such as the tundra are expected to experience the greatest temperature increase.Which one of the following best states the main point of the passage?

View answer

Top Courses for GMATView all

GMAT Focus Edition Mock Test Series 2025

Quantitative for GMAT

Crash Course for GMAT

Data Insights for GMAT

100 RCs for GMAT