In grammar, the subjunctive past and subjunctive past perfect moods are used to express events that are the opposite of present and past realities, respectively. As an ESL, you should have learned these forms at school, unlike many native English speakers who may not be familiar with their usage, often making errors, particularly with the subjunctive present form. For TOEFL purposes, having a good grasp of the subjunctive past perfect and mixed subjunctives is crucial to answer some implied meaning questions since they essentially assess whether you understand the meanings of sentences in subjunctive moods. As a refresher, here is an example of the subjunctive past perfect form.:
If … had +past participle, would (could, might) have + past participle
As said, the subjunctive past perfect is used to talk about events that did not happen in the past, but could have happened if things had been different. In other words, what it actually expresses is the opposite of past events. This is an example with the subjunctive past perfect mood:
If I had studied harder, I would have passed the exam. (I didn't study hard enough, so I failed the exam.)
Mixed subjunctive
In contrast to the indicative mood, which prioritizes tense consistency through tense-shifting requirements, the subjunctive mood allows for a mixture of tenses. This means that within a subjunctive sentence, it's possible for the two parts to refer to different time frames—one in the past and the other in the present. This is referred to as a "mixed subjunctive" sentence, and there are two scenarios in which this mixed form can occur. The first involves the if-condition discussing the opposite of a past event, while the result pertains to the opposite of a present situation. In this case, the 'if' clause should take the subjunctive past perfect form, and the main clause should use the subjunctive present form. Here are some examples:
If I had worked harder at school, I would have a better job now. (= I didn’t study hard at school, so now I don’t have a good job)
If we had looked at the map we wouldn't be lost now.(= Because we didn’t look at the map, we are lost now)
It can be the other way. That is, the 'if' clause is about the opposite of a present, habitual situation, and the then-clause is the opposite of a past event. In this case, the if clause is expressed with the subjunctive past form and the then-clause is expressed by the subjunctive past perfect form. For example,
If I weren't afraid of spiders, I would have picked it up.(= Since I am afraid of spiders, I did not pick up the spider.)
The subjunctive form is used in scholarly writing to express complex ideas and to engage in hypothetical or counterfactual reasoning. Naturally, some TOEFL questions relate to using the subjunctive mood as the clue since it signals the opposite of the actual situation. These are TOEFL questions that require you to understand the true meanings of the sentences of subjunctive past perfect and mixed subjunctive.
Dr. Byrnes books on TOEFL Reading and Writing
Question 1 (easy)
The historian argued that the war would not have happened if the leaders of the two countries had been more willing to compromise.
What is true of the war?
The war could have been avoided if the historian suggested that the two leaders be more willing to compromise.
Some believed that the war had happened because the two leaders had not been more willing to compromise.
The war did not happen because the leaders of the two countries had been more willing to compromise.
According to the historian, since the leaders were not willing to compromise more, the war is happening now.
Analysis
The historian is saying that the war could have been avoided if the leaders of the two countries had been more willing to compromise. This is a counterfactual hypothetical situation,that is, the leaders were not willing to compromise, and the war did happen.
A is a hypothetical statement. The war could have been avoided for many reasons, and there is no way to know for sure whether the historian's suggestion would have made a difference. So A is out.
B is consistent with our findings. So B is correct.
C is a false statement. The war did happen, and the fact that the leaders were not willing to compromise more is one of the reasons why it happened.
D is a false statement. The war is not happening now. It happened in the past.
Answer: B
Question 2 (medium)
A fish could have led to advanced parental care such as that seen in mammals.
What is true of fish based on the sentence?
Fish are generally not known for extensive parental care.
Fish exhibit advanced parental care
Only mammals exhibit advanced parental care
Both fish and mammals exhibit advanced parental care
Analysis
The sentence is in a subjunctive past perfect mood, as indicated by “could have.” So, it means the opposite of a past event, which allows us to infer that most fish did not lead to advanced parental care, which is to say that fish are generally not known for extensive parental care. There are of course exceptions like seahorses, which do show grat parental care. However, the exception, counterexample, does not make the sentence wrong due to the qualifier, “generally.”
Answer: A
Question 3 (hard)
The majority opinion of the Roman intellectuals was that Greek culture has originality, while Roman culture was derivative of Greek culture. This idea is succinctly expressed by Horace in his epistle as follows: “Had the Greeks held novelty in such disdain as we, what work of ancient date would now exist?”
According to the passage, intellectual Romans such as Horace held which of the following opinions about their civilization?
Ancient works of Greece held little value in the Roman world.
The Greek civilization had been surpassed by the Romans.
Roman civilization produced little that was original or memorable.
Romans valued certain types of innovations that had been ignored by ancient Greeks.
Analysis
Horace’s expression is in a mixed subjunctive mood, which amounts to saying this:
Since the Greeks did not hold novelty in such disdain as we, much work of ancient date (Greek work) exists now.
= Since the Greeks valued novelty, they have created many original objects that exist today.
The situation with the Greeks was in contrast with the Romans. So, Horace’s opinion of the Rome civilizations was that, since Romans didn’t value novelty, they didn’t create many objects of originality. C corresponds to this idea. “Derivative” means unoriginal or uninventive.
A is the opposite of Horace’s idea.
B is the opposite of Horace’s idea.
C coincides with our findings.
D is not inferrable.
Answer: C