If they andhellip;andhellip;andhellip;andhellip;andhellip;andhellip;. the Principal, he would have helped them.a)metb)had metc)have metd)meetCorrect answer is option 'B'. 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 > If they …………&hell...

If they ………………. the Principal, he would have helped them.

a)
met
b)
had met
c)
have met
d)
meet

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

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

If they ………………. the Principa...

To determine the correct answer, we need to analyze the sentence and the context provided.
The sentence is in the conditional form, indicating a hypothetical situation. The use of "would have" suggests that the action did not happen in reality but is being imagined.
Let's break down the options and analyze them one by one:
A: met
- This option is in the simple past tense. It suggests that the action of meeting the Principal would have taken place in the past.
- However, this option does not fit the structure of the conditional sentence. We need to use the past perfect tense to express an unrealized action in the past.
B: had met
- This option is in the past perfect tense. It suggests that the action of meeting the Principal would have taken place before another past event.
- This option aligns with the structure of the conditional sentence and is the correct answer.
C: have met
- This option is in the present perfect tense. It suggests that the action of meeting the Principal has taken place in the past and is still relevant in the present.
- However, this option does not fit the structure of the conditional sentence. We need to use the past perfect tense to express an unrealized action in the past.
D: meet
- This option is in the base form of the verb. It suggests a general action of meeting the Principal but does not convey the hypothetical nature of the sentence.
- This option does not fit the structure of the conditional sentence. We need to use the past perfect tense to express an unrealized action in the past.
Therefore, the correct answer is B: had met.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Similar GMAT Doubts

Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the question as follow.What is patriotism? Is it love of one’s birthplace, the place of childhood’s recollections and hopes, dreams and aspirations? Is it the place where, in childlike naivety, we would watch the fleeting clouds, and wonder why we, too, could not run so swiftly? The place where we would count the milliard glittering stars, terror-stricken lest each one “an eye should be,” piercing the very depths of our little souls? Is it the place where we would listen to the music of the birds, and long to have wings to fly, even as they, to distant lands? Or the place where we would sit at mother’s knee, enraptured by wonderful tales of great deeds and conquests? In short, is it love for the spot, every inch representing dear and precious recollections of a happy, joyous, and playful childhood?If that were patriotism, few American men of today could be called upon to be patriotic, since the place of play has been turned into factory, mill, and mine, while deafening sounds of machinery have replaced the music of the birds. Nor can we longer hear the tales of great deeds, for the stories our mothers tell today are but those of sorrow, tears, and grief.What, then, is patriotism? “Patriotism, sir, is the last resort of scoundrels,” said Dr. Johnson. Leo Tolstoy, the greatest anti-patriot of our times, defines patriotism as the principle that will justify the training of wholesale murderers; a trade that requires better equipment for the exercise of man-killing than the making of such necessities of life as shoes, clothing, and houses; a trade that guarantees better returns and greater glory than that of the average workingman.Gustave Herve, another great anti-patriot, justly calls patriotism a superstition— one far more injurious, brutal, and inhumane than religion. The superstition of religion originated in man’s inability to explain natural phenomena. That is, when primitive man heard thunder or saw the lightning, he could not account for either, and therefore concluded that back of them must be a force greater than himself. Similarly he saw a supernatural force in the rain, and in the various other changes in nature. Patriotism, on the other hand, is a superstition artificially created and maintained through a network of lies and falsehoods; a superstition that robs man of his self-respect and dignity, and increases his arrogance and conceit.Q.The passage does NOT mention which of the following about patriotism?

View answer

Physicians have disagreed for years about whether they should be involved in capital punishment of convicted criminals. Some physicians vigorously support participation, often arguing that organs should first be removed for transplantation. One frequent objection to capital punishment is that sometimes techniques don‘t work the first time, resulting in lingering, painful deaths. If physicians would guarantee that a patient would not die in such a way, they would gain the trust of some patients.For any kind of killing, some physicians favour the creation of designated killer technicians. This would free physicians from the taint of killing, keeping their image pure and their hands clean. But is this workable? Insofar as the designated killers are mere technicians, what prevents them from abusing their role? Wouldn‘t it be better for physicians, torn between saving life and honouring patients‘ wishes, to be reluctant killers? Wouldn‘t physicians know best what to do if something went wrong?Many physicians paradoxically endorse mercy killing but refuse to do it themselves. Nor do they think other physicians should kill. Physicians who support mercy killing but who don‘t want physicians to kill commonly emphasize the importance of maintaining the role of the physician as a healer and preserver of life. One poll of American physicians showed 60 percent favouring euthanasia but less than half would perform it themselves. To such physicians, taking life radically conflicts with the symbolic image of physicians. Such conflict, they say, destroys trust in physicians.Discussing this problem of designated killers in 1988, New England Journal of Medicine editor Marcia Angell called the idea an unsavoury prospect. She suggested that mercy killing may one day be the end point of a continuum of good patient care. She asks how any physician can excuse himself from this most basic notion? Dr. Angell concluded, Perhaps, also, those who favour legalizing euthanasia but would not perform it should rethink their position.Dr. Angell implies that it is hypocritical to favour mercy killing but would be unwilling to perform it. Is this true? There are at least two schools of thought. Some thinkers believe that if one favours, say, meat-eating, one should be willing to kill and prepare animals for eating oneself. Others conclude differently, seeing no reason why each person who favours a position must be willing to implement it.Must you be willing to kill a serial murderer to favour capital punishment? Critics say one must. Being face-to-face with one‘s victims creates basic moral qualms and such moral restraints are important to respect. In Stanley Milgram‘s studies on obedience, naive subjects under an experimenter‘s control were dramatically less willing to inflict injury as the victims became closer to subjects under study. In contrast, as the consequences of actions became more remote, such as by pressing a switch which released a bomb on an unseen, unknown populace, it became easier to inflict injury.The reader can conclude that a basic assumption of those in favour of using designated killers is that: A. the practice would evolve into a readily available medical option. B. very few physicians could be convinced to assume the role and duties. C. physicians would have to be present with the patient in order to conduct euthanasi

View answer

Information is the essence of universe and means distinction between things. It is the very basic principle of physics that distinctions never disappear even though they might get scrambled or mixed away even after a seemingly irreversible change say a magazine gets dissolved into pulp at a recycling plan, the information on the pages of the magazines will be re-organized and not eliminated and in theory the decay can be reversed; the pulp reconstructed into words and photographs. The only exception to this principle in physics is if the magazine were thrown into a black hole, a singular object in this regard, since nothing can emerge out of it after all. Even after Stephen Hawking showed in 1975 that black holes can radiate away matter and energy, the radiation seemed devoid of any structure, indicating that all information is lost in a black hole a conclusion that has been hotly contested by physicists all over the world who argue that the entire structure of theoretical physics will disintegrate once you accept the notion that information can be lost, even if in a black hole.Even though Hawking was not easily convinced, the physicists adopted a new theory called the holograph principle that states that when an object falls inside a black hole the stuff inside it may be lost but the objects information may be imprinted on the surface of black hole and with the right tools you may reconstruct the magazine from the black hole just as you would have reconstructed it from the pulp. This principle which may sound like an accounting trick has some serious implications if true. It implies that all information about 3 dimensional objects is stored in 2 dimensions and that there is a limit to how much information can be stored on a given surface area. While this theory plugs a key gap in Hawkins assertion its corollaries spring some interesting implications that may have a tough time standing up to the scrutiny.According to the passage, prior to 1975 it was believed that black holes were unique because

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

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

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

Top Courses for GMAT

View all

If they ………………. the Principal, he would have helped them.a)metb)had metc)have metd)meetCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
If they ………………. the Principal, he would have helped them.a)metb)had metc)have metd)meetCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2025 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about If they ………………. the Principal, he would have helped them.a)metb)had metc)have metd)meetCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for If they ………………. the Principal, he would have helped them.a)metb)had metc)have metd)meetCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for If they ………………. the Principal, he would have helped them.a)metb)had metc)have metd)meetCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of If they ………………. the Principal, he would have helped them.a)metb)had metc)have metd)meetCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of If they ………………. the Principal, he would have helped them.a)metb)had metc)have metd)meetCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for If they ………………. the Principal, he would have helped them.a)metb)had metc)have metd)meetCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of If they ………………. the Principal, he would have helped them.a)metb)had metc)have metd)meetCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice If they ………………. the Principal, he would have helped them.a)metb)had metc)have metd)meetCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.

Explore Courses for GMAT exam