# Had Judy been more careful ... she could have got much better results



## ohmyrichard

Here's a multiple choice question concerning the subjunctive mood:
Had Judy been more careful on the maths exam, she ____ much better results now.
　　A. would be getting　B. could have got
　　C. must get 　　　　D. would get
Please tell me which option is correct?And why?
Thanks.
Richard


----------



## Nunty

Ohmyrichard, please tell us first which option you would choose and why, or explain a bit of how you see the various options. Then, after you have shown your own effort, we will be very happy to help you.


----------



## ohmyrichard

Nun-Translator said:


> Ohmyrichard, please tell us first which option you would choose and why, or explain a bit of how you see the various options. Then, after you have shown your own effort, we will be very happy to help you.


This is an item included in a national test for English majors in China this past April. I would like to choose "would get", but I'm at a loss as to why. I see online some people chose "would be getting" or "could have got", and they didn't give a reason either. I admit although I've read grammar books again and again, still I don't quite get the sutle differences between these options. This has been a headache for me and many other Chinese learners. 
I need your help badly.
Thanks. 
Richard


----------



## Kevin Beach

Actually, it isn't very easy to pick a "right" answer, because the sentence itself is rather ambiguous.

First of all, we would say "in" the maths exam, not "on" it.

Secondly, it isn't obvious what relationship the results "now" are supposed to have to the exam, bearing in mind that the exam has already happened and nothing can be done to change the results. Therefore "now" seems to be superfluous, whatever option one chooses for the blank space.

My choice would be one that isn't there: "would have got". Failing that, "could have got" is the best substitute. I would still want to omit "now" though.

The only way I can think that "now" is relevant is if the comment is being made at precisely the time that the results are being announced. In that case, "would be getting" would fit perfectly, because it relates to something that is happening right now.


----------



## panjandrum

For more about in/on the exam, see preposition exam.

I share Kevin Beach's confusion.

At first I imagined that this sentence referred to results in a series of tests or exams that followed the maths exam that is mentioned.  That would allow me to suggest either _would be getting_ or _would get _as satisfactory answers.
But that seems illogical.  How could being more careful in an exam some time ago influence the results she would be getting for later exams?

So the logic of the sentence is in favour of these results being the results from the exam that is mentioned.  In which case, I agree with Kevin's analysis


----------



## pepperfire

I get marks on my exams all the time.

As for the correct answer to the multiple choice, I have to sort of disagree with panj and Kevin, although they are not wrong, I think they missed what I see..

I automatically chose A as the correct response:

Had Judy been more careful on the maths exam, she [color=red=would be getting[/color] much better results now.

The test has already occurred, but all of her marks since the test (now) and all of her marks going forward have been and will be affected by that mark, ergo, all of her results going forward have been brought down, unnecessarily because she didn't pay better attention.

The use of the word "now" at the end of sentence was the clue that "would get" was not the correct answer, because that would be incorrect grammar.


----------



## panjandrum

pepperfire said:


> [...]
> The test has already occurred, but all of her marks since the test (now) and all of her marks going forward have been and will be affected by that mark, ergo, all of her results going forward have been brought down, unnecessarily because she didn't pay better attention.
> [...]


I got that point, but I still don't understand:


			
				panj said:
			
		

> How could being more careful in an exam some time ago influence the results she would be getting for later exams?


----------



## mtmjr

Personally, I think the "now" sounds silly at the end of the sentence. If I were lamenting not trying hard enough on an exam, then I would say (in reference to Judy):

_Had Judy been more careful on the math exam, she would have gotten much better results._

I share panj's confusion, namely that her trying on exam A doesn't have any inherent effect on her grades on exam B. I think, therefore, that this (poorly worded) sentence, must be only referring to her results on exam A. With the "now", however, it makes it seem like we are standing by, watching as she receives her grade. I realize the "now" is supposed to make it present tense of some sort, but it sounds silly to my ear. If the now must stay, then I would say would be getting.


----------



## panjandrum

Moderator Note:
Please do not let this thread digress from its topic.
If you are curious about math maths look it up (click on the link ).
If you are curious about got gotten look it up.
One topic per thread please.
panjandrum


----------



## pepperfire

panjandrum said:


> I got that point, but I still don't understand:



Because her final grade is an AVERAGE of all of the marks she receives.

Normally, her marks are quite high, this exam, brought her down substantially, because she didn't take as much care as usual; perhaps she rushed and made errors because of it.


----------



## pepperfire

For what it's worth... Given the context of the original question, it is the presence of the word "now" which causes the only choice to be A.


----------



## mtmjr

Ah, now it makes sense.  But I have a further question.  Not having studied English grammar formally, I see no reason why D is necessarily incorrect.  It is in the present tense and conveys the same meaning, does it not?  I know I would naturally say A, but that does not explain why D is wrong.


----------



## Matching Mole

I agree with this last post of pepperfire's for the same reason. "Would get now" causes me problems because I'm not sure what "now" refers to.


----------



## pepperfire

One would never say "would get now"... it is improper English. One cannot mix the future and the present in such a sentence.

Would get, implies the future, as in had it not been for this exam, when the notes came out she'd receive a higher mark, but that is not the case. When the now is inserted it means that the present mark AND all future marks are altered, so, "would be getting" is automatically required.

(You would need someone with a better grasp of the grammar rules to clarify this mechanically, I'm sorry).


----------



## Kevin Beach

At large, "would" can be used with "now" because it can be used to express the present tense in the conditional mode of the verb as well as a past tense in the indicative mode. Consider:

"If you were to light the firework immediately, you would get a bang now".


----------



## JamesM

The fact that there is no clear consensus from multiple native speakers should make you feel better about your confusion.  I think the question is poorly written.  I agree with others that the "now" is a confusing clue when placed against "math(s) exam". 

If the sentence had been, for example:

Had Judy been more careful in her homework, she ____ much better results now.
　　A. would be getting　B. could have got
　　C. must get 　　　　D. would get

the answer, to me, would clearly be A.  Homework is an ongoing process, and she would be getting better results now if she had applied herself consistently to her homework.  

"The maths exam" sounds like a single event.  "Would be getting" is a continuous action.  I am with Panjandrum.  Doing poorly on one maths exam does not have a direct correlation on her current continuous results.  She could study harder as a result of the exam, knowing which concepts she had failed to grasp.  It is not a direct cause-and-effect relationship.

Likewise, if the word were not "results" but "offers", the sentence would be much clearer. As a result of her poor showing on the math exam she has not received offers from schools she would like to attend.  The sentence would make sense.

As it is, though, it is very ambiguous.  If I had to choose, I would pick "D" on the assumption that the "results" were her final grade point averages.  Even so, I would be cursing the question-writer under my breath as I chose it.


----------



## pepperfire

And... you'd get it wrong. 

Kevin's example... "If you were to light the firework immediately, you would get a bang now" is another case of poor grammar.

"If you were to light the firework immediately" might initiate the concept of the present, but because the bang occurs AFTER the lighting, ie, in the future, NOW would make the sentence incorrect.

If you do this, whatever happens cannot be a "now" unless you've got a Delorean parked in your garage.

(Cultural reference to the time machine in the movie Back to the Future).


----------



## Loob

I agree with those who've said it's a poorly-worded question. This native speaker, for one, had to do a considerable amount of mental gymnastics to make sense of it. 

By the time I'd got to the 'now' at the end of the sentence, my brain had already inserted the much more usual "would have got" into the blank. So I then had to re-think, and came up with "would be getting".

I _then_ had to try to puzzle out a meaning of "results" which would make the sentence make sense. I managed this in the end (and before pepper's post 10). But it wasn't easy, as I would normally assume results plural to mean a series of results, one for each exam. 

As James says, don't feel bad about your confusion, ohmyrichard



_PS to pepper: there's nothing wrong with "If you were to light the firework immediately, you would get a bang now"._


----------



## panjandrum

A great deal depends on what you mean by now.

Now has several shades of meaning.
It may be - _At the present time or moment._
However, it may also be - _under the present circumstances; in view of what has happened.
(OED definitions)
_That may also influence the acceptability of (D) _she would get_.


----------



## Kevin Beach

pepperfire said:


> And... you'd get it wrong.
> 
> Kevin's example... "If you were to light the firework immediately, you would get a bang now" is another case of poor grammar.
> 
> "If you were to light the firework immediately" might initiate the concept of the present, but because the bang occurs AFTER the lighting, ie, in the future, NOW would make the sentence incorrect.
> 
> If you do this, whatever happens cannot be a "now" unless you've got a Delorean parked in your garage.
> 
> (Cultural reference to the time machine in the movie Back to the Future).


If you want a philosophical discussion about the meaning of "now", that's fine, but it's hardly on topic. By your definition, by the time that anybody had realised that "now" was here, it would have gone and would be "then".

"Now" doesn't mean just "this nanosecond". It encompasses a short continuum of events that people label the "now". For instance, I started typing this message about 90 seconds ago. By the time I post it I shall have been at it for over two minutes. By the time you read it, my efforts will be wholly in the past. Yet I can justifiably, and with good grammar, say that I am doing it "now". Further, if you were to read it as soon as I posted it, you would be reading it now.


----------



## pepperfire

Kevin Beach said:


> If you want a philosophical discussion about the meaning of "now", that's fine, but it's hardly on topic. By your definition, by the time that anybody had realised that "now" was here, it would have gone and would be "then".
> 
> "Now" doesn't mean just "this nanosecond". It encompasses a short continuum of events that people label the "now". For instance, I started typing this message about 90 seconds ago. By the time I post it I shall have been at it for over two minutes. By the time you read it, my efforts will be wholly in the past. Yet I can justifiably, and with good grammar, say that I am doing it "now". Further, if you were to read it as soon as I posted it, you would be reading it now.



And as you stated... you would be reading it now. That is my point. It is the "now" that forces the "would be".

The question is WHICH IS THE CORRECT ANSWER? All philosophical discussoin of the meaning of "now" is key to responding to the question at hand. "NOW" is what makes "A" the only correct choice.


----------



## Kevin Beach

pepperfire said:


> And as you stated... you would be reading it now. That is my point. It is the "now" that forces the "would be".
> 
> The question is WHICH IS THE CORRECT ANSWER? All philosophical discussoin of the meaning of "now" is key to responding to the question at hand. "NOW" is what makes "A" the only correct choice.


And thus: "Had Judy been more careful in the maths exam, she would be getting much better results now", which is where we started.


----------



## panjandrum

One more question.
I'll change a little of the context because the connection between the maths exam and current results still troubles me.

_Judy is not getting very good results now._
_Had Judy worked harder at school, she would be getting much better results now.

Judy does not get very good results now.
Had Judy worked harder at school, she would get much better results now._

Both sound OK to me.


----------



## Loob

And to me, panj.

In both your sentences, she's _repeatedly_ getting good results now. Which can't be the case in the original (problematical) sentence, I think...


----------



## BritinFrance

There is  no correct answer.
For a start it should be 'Had Judy  been more careful *in *the Maths exam' not 'on'
The second part should normally be 'she would have got much better results'  (without the now)
So the correct answer (not provided) is 
Had Judy  been more careful in the Maths exam she would have got much better results'

There is clearly no logical connection between a performance in a past  Exam and presnt results, so the 'now' is redundant


----------



## pepperfire

BritinFrance said:


> There is  no correct answer.
> For a start it should be 'Had Judy  been more careful *in *the Maths exam' not 'on'
> The second part should normally be 'she would have got much better results'  (without the now)
> So the correct answer (not provided) is
> Had Judy  been more careful in the Maths exam she would have got much better results'
> 
> There is clearly no logical connection between a performance in a past  Exam and presnt results, so the 'now' is redundant



To begin with, I will restate the fact that I have never said been more careful "in" an exam in my life; I have always said "on". One is "in" an exam only while they are writing it. Since you regularly use "in" and I have never done so, then it is highly likely that both are correct and neither is "wrong".

I won't bother going into yet again why A is the only possible answer; that would be redundant.

I will make the point of saying that I find it highly unlikely that the source of the multiple choice question deliberately or even accidentally used "now", especially when using it causes "would be getting" to be the only possible correct choice.


----------



## pepperfire

panjandrum said:


> One more question.
> I'll change a little of the context because the connection between the maths exam and current results still troubles me.
> 
> _Judy is not getting very good results now._
> _Had Judy worked harder at school, she would be getting much better results now.
> 
> Judy does not get very good results now.
> Had Judy worked harder at school, she would get much better results now._
> 
> Both sound OK to me.



Granted the second "sounds' ok, I agree, but it is a mixed tense and doesn't work, with the mixed tense then "would be getting" is the only choice.

The results are continual, would be getting is continual. Would get is stagnant, now is continual, ergo it's a mixed tense.

Boy I wished I'd paid more attention to the mechanics of English grammar, when I learned this stuff;  Perhaps I could explain it better.


----------



## Loob

pepperfire said:


> Granted the second "sounds' ok, I agree, but it is a mixed tense and doesn't work, with the mixed tense then "would be getting" is the only choice.
> 
> The results are continual, would be getting is continual. Would get is stagnant, now is continual, ergo it's a mixed tense.
> 
> Boy I wished I'd paid more attention to the mechanics of English grammar, when I learned this stuff;  Perhaps I could explain it better.


I'm sorry, pepper, I don't understand your comments_ *at all*._

Both of panj's sentences are perfectly fine.


----------



## pepperfire

Loob said:


> I'm sorry, pepper, I don't understand your comments_ *at all*._
> 
> Both of panj's sentences are perfectly fine.



This is tricky... sorry.

"She would get results"... is a purely future tense there is no present in the usage, even if "now" could be used to mean both present tense and continual tense, it is not a future tense, therefore saying "she would get results now" is out of tense, ergo, we can only use the mixed tense meaning of "now" which thus demands the use of "would be getting", the continual tense of that verb.

Clear as mud?


----------



## Kevin Beach

pepperfire said:


> This is tricky... sorry.
> 
> "She would get results"... is a purely future tense there is no present in the usage, even if "now" could be used to mean both present tense and continual tense, it is not a future tense, therefore saying "she would get results now" is out of tense, ergo, we can only use the mixed tense meaning of "now" which thus demands the use of "would be getting", the continual tense of that verb.
> 
> Clear as mud?


I'm sorry, pepperfire, but I think you are wrong when you say that "she would get results now" is purely future tense. Maybe you aren't attributing enough weight to the different moods of verbs. "Would" is certainly a future verb when used in the indicative mood, but need not be when used in the conditional or subjunctive modes.

For example:

*Q "Is the result fair?" A "No, it is not fair, but it would be fair if you divided the supplies differently".* 

The condition (prefaced by "if") speaks as to the present, as an alternative to "is". It does not speak as to any other tense. For the same reason, "divided" is in the present tense, but in the conditional mood, notwithstanding that it is identical in form to the past tense in the indicative mood.


----------



## pepperfire

Okay, fine... try this... it is and can only be "A" because use of the word "now" puts the statement into the future conditional progressive tense.

Using "would get" is the conditional simple tense of the verb and therefore is wrong.

http://www.ego4u.com/en/cram-up/grammar/tenses

Thanks for making me look.


----------



## Kevin Beach

pepperfire said:


> Okay, fine... try this... it is and can only be "A" because use of the word "now" puts the statement into the future conditional progressive tense.
> 
> Using "would get" is the conditional simple tense of the verb and therefore is wrong.
> 
> http://www.ego4u.com/en/cram-up/grammar/tenses
> 
> Thanks for making me look.



We agree again!  As I said in post number 4:


			
				Kevin Beach said:
			
		

> The only way I can think that "now" is relevant is if the comment is being made at precisely the time that the results are being announced. In that case, "would be getting" would fit perfectly, because it relates to something that is happening right now.


----------



## pepperfire

Kevin Beach said:


> We agree again!  As I said in post number 4:



Yes, but now we all know why and I found a great link to explain why certain tenses are the way they are.


----------



## Loob

Can I take it, pepper, that you've now stopped thinking that one of panj's sentences is wrong?

You don't need to argue against one of them in order to maintain that "would be getting" is the right choice in the original sentence.


----------



## pepperfire

Loob said:


> Can I take it, pepper, that you've now stopped thinking that one of panj's sentences is wrong?
> 
> You don't need to argue against one of them in order to maintain that "would be getting" is the right choice in the original sentence.



That would be an incorrect assessment, Loop. Panj's second statement is wrong, no matter how "fine it sounds to the ear", if only because of the use of the word "now". It absolutely demands the future conditional progressive tense of the verb.

I am quite certain that the English professors who wrote the exam, knew that and wanted the ambiguity of the word "now" to confuse those who were not quite certain of their grammar rules to choose the simple tense, separating the wheat from the chaff, if you will. It is, after all, for an English Majors class and they would be expected to know this rule in order to get the response correct, even if I didn't remember the rule until looking it up.


----------



## mtmjr

_Had I liked the movie I saw last month, I would get it from the store (right) now._

I fail to see why "now" would make this sentence wrong.


----------



## Loob

We're in danger of getting into an "oh yes it is, oh no it isn't" pantomine situation, pepper.

Panj's second sentence
_



Had Judy worked harder at school, she would get much better results now.

Click to expand...

_is not wrong.

As I said, you don't need to argue that it is in order to argue that "would be getting" is the right answer to the OP's sentence.

EDIT: mtmjr, I've just seen your post and I agree with you


----------



## BritinFrance

The first post states "Here's a multiple choice question concerning the *subjunctive* *mood*"
but in fact the question is about the third conditional (sometimes known as the impossible conditional)
This suggests straight away that someone is confused.

To revise: in the third conditional the verb in the if clause is in the _past perfect_ or _past perfect continuous_ (here 'had' is this verb) and the verb in the main clause is in _the perfect conditional_ or the _perfect conditional continuous _(this is where the optional answers come in.
would/could/might  have got
would/could/might be getting
are all potentially correct grammatically.

The problem is with the confusion between two sorts of 'results'
Those obtained from the examination which can't be altered, and the results of  work which isn't mentioned in this sentence.
A possible version would be "Had Judy worked harder she would be getting much better results now"

But there is no connection between 'care in the examination' and 'results now...'
So I still maintain that none of the options given are correct.

It is not impossible to imagine a test of English set by non-native speakers that makes this sort of mistake.
I have seen it in French school text books. Why not in China?
The initial confusion over _subjunctive _supports my suspicions


----------



## Loob

I agree, BritinFrance, that the multiple-choice question is about the third conditional.

Some grammarians refer to the use of some modal verbs, including would, as "subjunctive mood". I personally don't, but I respect the right of others to do so. 

I believe you are wrong to link ohmyrichard's use of the term subjunctive to the oddity of the question. He was himself pointing out how strange the question was.


----------



## mjscott

Had Judy been more careful on the maths exam, she would be getting much better results now. 

_If Judy hadn't screwed up on her test, her grade point average would be higher now._

Had Judy been more careful on the maths exam, she could have got much better results now.  (NOW is the key--can't go into the second part of a conditional in the past tense, if NOW (the present) is used.

_if Judy hadn't screwed up on her test, she could have gotten a higher grade point average now._

Had Judy been more careful on the maths exam, she must get much better results now.  (Same as above. Second clause of the sentence is not a finished condition, and also goes into the future.)

_If Judy hadn't screwed up on her test, she must get a much higher grade point average now._

Had Judy been more careful on the maths exam, she would get much better results now. 

_If Judy hadn't screwed up on her test, she would get a higher GPA now. _

The only one that stays in the conditional past tense is A, however I have heard people finishing the sentence with the simple present tense, as in D, and they do not self-destruct....Neither do those around them.

I agree that this one is confusing. It is the result of some non-native speaker trying to make tricky test questions. It is not a good way to learn, and frustrates many into thinking they can't learn....


----------



## panjandrum

I wonder, mjscott, if your analysis would change if the results in the sentence were a series of results from a number of different tests.  
Some of these tests have already occurred and the results are known.  
Some have still to happen and obviously the results are not known.  

This relates to the point that Kevin and I raised right at the very beginning about the number of results.  It also relates to the interpretation of _now_.


----------



## Loob

Panj, I'm starting to wonder if this question is easier for (some) North Americans than it is for Brits because they have a grade point average concept and we don't...


----------



## Kevin Beach

Loob said:


> Panj, I'm starting to wonder if this question is easier for (some) North Americans than it is for Brits because they have a grade point average concept and we don't...


I've wondered that too. Common language does not necessarily equal common culture......

[Considers wheeling out G B Shaw: "...divided by the same language"]


----------



## panjandrum

Loob said:


> Panj, I'm starting to wonder if this question is easier for (some) North Americans than it is for Brits because they have a grade point average concept and we don't...


Possibly, although the sentence is clearly not about a single GPA but a number of results - perhaps the GPA as it develops over time.

(This is not, by the way, a life or death issue for me - I'm simpy curious about how we come to such different perspectives on this particular sentence.)


----------



## BritinFrance

I was going to post about the cultural difference but the rest of you beat me to it..
On the other hand I still have a problem how 'results now' can be changed by a previous better examination.
The average mark ( or grade point average)  would be higher, but the results being achieved in subsequent tests would be the same.


----------



## ohmyrichard

mjscott said:
			
		

> [...]
> I agree that this one is confusing. It is the result of some non-native speaker trying to make tricky test questions. It is not a good way to learn, and frustrates many into thinking they can't learn....


 
This comment of yours makes sense. Yes, the ones who set the test paper even never wished to take the trouble to invite native speakers to judge the acceptability of what they included in a national test! And they never publicize the key to the test, thus making us keep guessing about numberous possibilities. The Grammar part of the test has become nothing but a mere word game for English majors and English teachers in China. Anyway, thanks for all your efforts of trying to help me out. However, to tell you the truth, I am sweating now after having read all your posts because of confusion and nervousness. You are not to blame. It is the so called linguistic experts who are to blame. Their neglect caused us a big headache. Thank you all.


----------



## pepperfire

ohmyrichard said:


> This comment of yours makes sense. Yes, the ones who set the test paper even never wished to take the trouble to invite native speakers to judge the acceptability of what they included in a national test! And they never publicize the key to the test, thus making us keep guessing about numberous possibilities. The Grammar part of the test has become nothing but a mere word game for English majors and English teachers in China. Anyway, thanks for all your efforts of trying to help me out. However, to tell you the truth, I am sweating now after having read all your posts because of confusion and nervousness. You are not to blame. It is the so called linguistic experts who are to blame. Their neglect caused us a big headache. Thank you all.



Let us address the cultural differences question off-hand... Would the creators of this test, ie, your professors, be aware of Grade Point averages??


----------



## ohmyrichard

pepperfire said:


> Let us address the cultural differences question off-hand... Would the creators of this test, ie, your professors, be aware of Grade Point averages??


I have no idea whether they know or not. But please enlighten me first. I would like to know about it.


----------



## liliput

None of the suggested answers makes any sense to me. If it's based on the American concept of GPAs, why is mathematics abbreviated in the British way (i.e. maths not math)?

I'm extremely doubtful about the educational value of this kind of gap-fill exercise, especially one so obviously designed to trip people up and so ambiguous that most native speakers don't know what the right answer is.


----------



## pepperfire

It is not only Americans that use Grade Point Averages (GPAs), although we don't actually call them that here in Canada, we simply call them grades or marks.

As a child or adolescent progresses through their school year, they are given a series of tests and exams. It is the combination of all of their work that determines their grades at the end of the trimester as well as at the end of the year. Some exams and tests are more heavily weighted than other exams too. So, without knowing exactly how the student's grades are compiled for a particular school board (they explain it on the student's report cards, and no, they are not all identical), it is only possible to give an approximate idea of why the grade is not a stagnant thing.

The school year would typically be broken up into three sessions, each session would include a series of (say) 3 or 4 tests and a final exam. Each semester's final exam may be worth 1/3 of the student's final mark. So, a typical school grade might progress like this...

exam/test 1 score: 90% --- Grade average for the course 90%
exam/test 2 score: 95% --- Grade average 92.5%
exam/test 3 score: 98% --- Grade average 94.3%
Trimester exam final (unweighted) 63% --- Final Trimester grade: 86.5%
If the trimester exam is worth 50% of their Trimester grade, it would be: 78.65%

Semester 1 Final --- 86.5% or 78.65%
Semester 2 Final --- 96%
Semester 3 Final --- 97%

Final grade --- 93.16% or 90.55

As you can see, the exam itself is one mark, but it will weight on the running average mark that the student receives over the course of the year; so getting any mark automatically affects every mark that follows; not on subsequent tests but rather on the forthcoming report card.

Clear as mud?


----------



## BritinFrance

But the original sentence refers to 'results now' not to a subsequent report card or average mark.


----------



## pepperfire

The moving average IS the current result.


----------



## JamesM

"Result", not "results." "Getting better results" does not equate to "getting a better GPA", in my opinion.  A GPA is a singular thing.


----------



## pepperfire

Once again with feeling...

The current result IS the same as ALL of the future result*s* UNTIL a new test/exam occurs.

It's a "MOVING" average. It is, YES, a singular thing, but it is not stagnant, it changes every time there is a result, and every time there is a new test, there are new results.


----------



## JamesM

I suppose we just must agree to disagree. Saying it louder will not not convince me, pepperfire.  In my opinion, it is still a poorly worded and ambiguous sentence with multiple miscues, one of them being "results", another being "now." You obviously don't agree. I am fine with that. We simply disagree.  Discussions do not always end with one opinion prevailing, particularly here on WRF.


----------



## Forero

I don't think getting better results now has anything to do with averages.  A GPA is a running average, not results.  One doesn't "get" a GPA now; it is calculated.

This test question does not make sense to me.  In AE, we say "on the math exam"; in BE, it's "in the maths exam".  Where is it "on the maths exam"?  India?  Hong Kong?  Maybe it makes sense to some native speaker somewhere?


----------



## mtmjr

I think we should all just agree that this question has severe problems, as JamesM said. That said, any further picking-apart of this error-ridden question is fruitless.

Also, the concept of a GPA being discussed throughout most of this thread is most certainly _not_ how any of us with GPA's think about it. It is as Forero says, a GPA is *a* result, calculated at set intervals (quarter, semester, etc.). I worry about my GPA when I get a bad overall grade in a class, not a bad grade on a single test.


----------



## Anshi

Had Judy been more careful on the maths exam,she      B    much better results now.
A.would be getting    B.could have got     C.must get     D.would get
Why does this sentence choose B not D when the word "now" is used in it?


----------



## Pameling

There is a sentence : Had Judy been more careful on the maths exam , she ____ much better results now .I am confused about the key "could have got" to the blank , and I think "would get" may be much better .  Waiting for your reply ! Thank you !


----------



## DonnyB

The sentence you've given here consists of an if-clause in the pluperfect (Had Judy been more careful = If Judy *had been *more careful) denoting a hypothetical event _in the past.  _So to match it, you need a _conditional perfect _tense to denote the result taking place _in the past.  _Therefore "*could have got*"_ (= *would have been able *to get)_ is correct but "would get", which is the simple or present conditional is wrong.


----------



## Julia123

Had Judy been more careful on the math exam, she would have got much better results now.

I found this sentence in one of my test papers, but I wonder why we don't view it as a mixed subjunctive mood and use "would get" to replace "would have got"?


----------



## Ariel Knightly

I guess Pameling's problem was the _now _they used at the end of the sentence. How can that go with a past tense expression? Does it sound natural?


----------



## DonnyB

I've no idea why they've used "now" in that sentence: it contradicts the choices of tenses they've opted for and is understandably confusing people.  If what they mean is that *had she been *careful in the exam (which presumably took place some time ago), she *would have learned *from her mistakes and be getting better marks for the work she's currently doing (=*now*) then you could have something like "*would be getting*".  But I don't think you can use that in the sentence as it stands.

Edit:
Ah, all becomes clear << Threads merged >>
The four options are:  A.would be getting    B.could have got     C.must get     D.would get
So, yes: the one that fits best the inference I've drawn from the "now" is  A:*would be getting

*It's a very badly designed question, in my opinion.


----------



## Julia123

Thank you! I have read it. But actually, this are four choices, "would be getting", "could have got", "must get", and "would get”, we can choose just one of them. I've

always been confused between the second and the last one due to the word "now". According to your analysis, we can't compare it to the sentence "If only the patient

had received a different treatment instead of using the antibiotics, he might still be alive now.", can we?


----------



## Andygc

Moderator note. Three questions about the same text have now been merged. Please read all of the questions and answers before adding another post.


----------



## DonnyB

Julia123 said:


> According to your analysis, we can't compare it to the sentence "If only the patient
> had received a different treatment instead of using the antibiotics, he might still be alive now.", can we?


Yes, you can.  The 'original' form of that condition would be:
"If only the patient had received a different treatment instead of using the antibiotics, he *would not have died*" (conditional perfect tense).  But by introducing _still _and _now _and reversing the negative _died _to the positive_ alive _you then need to shift the tense to the present in the same way as Julia _would be getting _better marks for her current work "now".


----------



## Myridon

My problem is that I can't understand the either the context or logic of the sentence at all so I can't even decide on something outside the choices given.  She wasn't *careful *on the maths exam.  That seems to say that she knew how do it but made a mistake and got bad marks (a bad grade in AmE) on that one test.  How does that bad mark affect the present (considering that she did actually learn the material)? Is "now" the same school term or 20 years later?  What are these "results"?


----------



## Andygc

And ... now merged with a thread which has previously discussed the same text at length. Hence Rule 1, which is "Search first".


----------

