诚心求问关于虚拟语气主从句不一致情况

masaosao

问题提得有些抽象，直接看题目吧。。。
来自prep-2018的233题：
233. (GWD-9-Q19)

In many nations, criminal law does not apply tocorporations, but in the United States today, a corporation commits a crimewhenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted withinthe scope of his or her authority and if the corporation benefited as a result.

A.    a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits acrime, if the employee acted

B.    a corporation is committing a crime whenever one of its employeescommitted a crime, if those employees were acting
C.    corporations commit a crime whenever one of its employees does, on thecondition that the employee acts
D.     corporations commit crimes whenever an employeeof those corporations commit a crime, if it was while acting             (A)
E.     the corporation whose employees commit a crime, commits a crime,whenever the employee acted

选项分析：A.     Correct；虚拟条件句从句+正常语气主句。


虽然可以做出来是A。。。但是这个结构感觉让我有点颠覆三观了。。。我基本上完全没看到过虚拟条件下的主从句可以不一致的。。。如解析所说从句是虚拟条件，主句变成了正常语序。
按照逻辑，不应该是“在虚拟语气的条件下，这个公司XXX“，总觉得应该用would commit，但用了would以后这个主句里面的状语从句里面另一个commit时态怎么变。。。想着想着就感觉有点混乱。
不过如果按照虚拟语气主从句就是可以不一致的话，倒是解释的通了。。。但就是没看到过有任何资料或者很少有实例来体现这个规则。。。还有就是真的GMAT碰到该如何按照意思逻辑或是语法去判断。


跪求各位大大们的帮助，多谢多谢！！

paddy114

同问

masaosao

upup，真的跪求各位大手子们的帮助QAQ

masaosao

啊抱歉，打错了是prep的2008。。。

冷面杀手吃冷面

这道题cd早就有人问过了，学会运用论坛搜索功能，会很有帮助，这里贴一篇对你可能有用的帖子https://forum.chasedream.com/thread-458231-1-9.html

masaosao

冷面杀手吃冷面 发表于 2017-11-16 21:11
这道题cd早就有人问过了，学会运用论坛搜索功能，会很有帮助，这里贴一篇对你可能有用的帖子https://forum. ...

那几篇和这题回复贴和您贴出来的链接实际上我都看过了，贴出来的链接在后面有一个类似的情况，但也没有讲到类似用法，而在那几篇这题的回复贴中，我也仅找到了AlienX大神的这句话：P1#217. Not one of the potential investors is expected to make an offer to buy First Interstate Bank until a merger agreement is signed that includes a provision for penalties if the deal were not to be concluded.

为了寻找这题的答案，在发帖前我也前往了Manhattan的论坛，的确也有人质疑这题，而且其中得到了Ron大神的解答：https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/forums/in-many-nations-criminal-law-does-not-apply-to-corporations-t9108.html

但是值得注意的是，Ron大神对于这题一开始的评论是： this is one of the most horrible official problems i've ever seen; the arbitrary transition from present tense to past tense (which happens in all five choices) is disgusting.

然而在进一步想方设法解释的时候，他对于A时态的转化给出了这样的解释：
the simplest way to analyze this issue is to note that this verb must be parallel to "benefited", since both of those actions are simultaneous.
the context, i guess, is that the action (and the benefit) already took place before the action is brought to court and charged as a crime; hence the difference in tenses.

这就显得很有趣了，显然在这里Ron认为这根本不是一个虚拟语气，而是体现了事件发生先后顺序的一个解释。再回过头来看AlienX大神的那句话，如果是按照相同的逻辑，实际上也能解释为先后关系的体现。

所以实际上还是想要有一个较为体系化和高认可度的解释，十分感谢！