Brings to mind one of my favorite bits of writing:
“One of the major problems encountered in time travel is not that of becoming your own father or mother. There is no problem in becoming your own father or mother that a broad-minded and well-adjusted family can't cope with. There is no problem with changing the course of history—the course of history does not change because it all fits together like a jigsaw. All the important changes have happened before the things they were supposed to change and it all sorts itself out in the end.
The major problem is simply one of grammar, and the main work to consult in this matter is Dr. Dan Streetmentioner's Time Traveler's Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations. It will tell you, for instance, how to describe something that was about to happen to you in the past before you avoided it by time-jumping forward two days in order to avoid it. The event will be described differently according to whether you are talking about it from the standpoint of your own natural time, from a time in the further future, or a time in the further past and is further complicated by the possibility of conducting conversations while you are actually traveling from one time to another with the intention of becoming your own mother or father.
Most readers get as far as the Future Semiconditionally Modified Subinverted Plagal Past Subjunctive Intentional before giving up; and in fact in later editions of the book all pages beyond this point have been left blank to save on printing costs.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy skips lightly over this tangle of academic abstraction, pausing only to note that the term "Future Perfect" has been abandoned since it was discovered not to be.”
- Douglas Adams, The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe
RIMMER: Lister, it has happened. You can't change it, any more than you can change what you had for breakfast yesterday.
LISTER: Hey, it hasn't happened, has it? It has "will have going to have happened" happened, but it hasn't actually "happened" happened yet, actually.
RIMMER: Poppycock! It will be happened; it shall be going to be happening; it will be was an event that could will have been taken place in the future. Simple as that. Your bucket's been kicked, baby.
Red Dwarf, Future Echos, after Rimmer believes he sees Lister die in the future
The correct answer is B, as others have mentioned. It is a modal auxiliary verb in front of a verb phrase with perfect aspect (or perfect tense) to indicate something that has occurred at an earlier time (you seeing the news).
A. is grammatically acceptable, but the use of the present tense verb 'see' with the modal auxiliary 'would', suggests something ongoing, like 'As you would see on a map, our town is prone to flooding.' rather than something specific, like 'As you will have seen on the news, our town flooded last week.'
C. is incorrect as you would use the infinite form of the verb in front of 'to'. So, "are seeing" or maybe "are to see".
D. is a passive construction, so it would be you on the news being seen.
I think you still need the "have" because it's referring to a news story that has already been shown. In other words, the act of seeing the news item has already occurred at the time under consideration.
If it were a massive and ongoing story that was still continuing, maybe it would work - "As you would see in the news, crime is a frequent issue in our town."
The answer is B, but there are also other forms that could make sense here that just aren't options given. The other options here don't make grammatical sense.
"As you may have seen" is maybe a better answer, but "As you will have seen" is correct.
It looks like you have been downvoted but THIS IS THE CORRECT ANSWER. Though it is the future perfect tense which grammatically puts 'seeing' in the future from 'now', idiomatically it is the same as saying 'I am sure you have seen it already'.
Both are correct
Difference is"will have seen" mesns the speaker is sure that the listener has seen X. "May gave seen" means the speaker thinks it is likely that the listener has seen X but the speaker is not sure.
It sounds totally natural, and quite commonplace, to me (British) but I can see how it might sound weird if you look at it in a particularly way.
Don't really know how to explain it grammatically, but it is sort of a 'will of presumption'. 'As you have seen' is too definitive, and 'as you will see' is too future and doesn't fit with talking about something you're assuming you both already know about.
This is the modal will that indicates predictions; it doesn't actually have a sense of futurity. "That'll be the postman" when the bell rings and you're expecting a package is the same usage.
The people saying the wording is too presumptuous should probably consider that the speaker's presumption about your knowledge is part of what is being communicated. If you change the wording to avoid that then you're changing the meaning.
Wording something presumptuously like that can also be a way of politely giving someone an out if you suspect they're not familiar with something they should be.
Person A: As I'm sure you are aware, it's Jane's birthday next Wednesday the figures for the last quarter are due next week.
Person B: Oh, yes, I bought her a card yesterday I'm halfway through compiling them. (No I didn't I'm not. Thank God he reminded me.)
Edit: The birthday is probably a bad example because only an eccentric would talk like that in an informal setting like talking about a birthday but in a formal setting it works.
This is very tricksy! Agree with the other commenters - will have seen. The tricksy bit, though, is that it looks like future perfect but I don't think it actually is.
If you said:
As you have seen in the news...
it means the same as
As you will have seen in the news...
So I think the 'will' here isn't about the future, it's about expressing certainty. Like saying "I'm sure you heard about this already (but I'm going to give you more information)."
It's B. Future perfect, used for a future action that will take place before another future action. First action: seeing the news, second action: receiving recognition.
As you will have seen in the news, our town is to receive some recognition this year.
I think this is the best explanation so far because it explains the grammar of it all (two future actions where one action happens before the other). Future perfect is a nightmare tense for English language learners. “Hey, I’m going to talk about two things that will happen in the future, BUT I’m going to talk about one of them in a future where it’s already happened!” That’s not confusing at all!
It’s B, but it seems a bit clunky to me for some reason. I don’t think it’s grammatically correct, but I would say “as you would have seen” or “would’ve”
Man. I’m a native English speaker and I see people posting questions to these English tests that I myself have a hard time figuring out. Seems like a lot of them use semi-uncommon/outdated speech, must be fairly advanced unless I’m dumber than I thought. Either that or speech has become so muddled with colloquialisms and slang that the proper grammar is forgotten.
All I can say is that I am glad that I learned English as a native speaker and I feel so sorry for all English language learners who are tested to this level of detail.
They are probably looking for B. A would also work depending on context though. A is for passive aggressively telling someone who doesn't look at the news to look at the news about the town. B is for reminding someone of what they should have already seen in the news.
'As you have seen in the news, our town is due to receive recognition this year.' is how I'd phrase it as a native English speaker, but unfortunately that isn't an option
A is correct, but it says that the speaker believes the listener doesn't actually follow the news.
B is almost certainly the answer they wanted you to give. It illustrates the "future in the past" (which is more common in French, Spanish, and Italian).
C is simply not English.
D is grammatically correct, but it means that the town is finally getting some recognition because you personally were seen in the news, which seems rather far-fetched.
I haven't seen this in the comments yet, but go ahead and look up "epistemic future". I believe there is a short wordreference thread on this. The future perfect is often used to assume or suppose that something should or must have already been done at the time to speaking.
"Will have seen" is correct. It's not common (like I might say it once every few months) but it is accurate. It is conveying a very similar meaning to: "you probably saw" or "you would have seen," or, more generally, "you probably already know this..." It also has a fairly formal tone, not something you would use in a really casual conversation with friends.
B is the correct answer, but I like D more because it implies a story where the town gained recognition for noticing the listener. Maybe he's a notorious thief they finally caught and this is the mayor gloating in front of his cell.
Will have seen. I'm not a fan of the wording but it's correct. Now to practice, try making a better sentence. Personally, I would say, "As you may have heard.....", or "You may have heard that.......
B is correct. but I would never say it like that in real life lol. this is extremely formal and would probably only be phrased like this by a government official addressing a crowd (at least in my experience. USA)
By the way, native English speakers do not use the abbreviation “sm”. I’m not even sure what word you mean there, that’s how unclear it is, which is probably why we don’t use it. Something to be aware of is that ESL classes in non English speaking countries often teach abbreviations that we don’t use.
It makes sense because will isn't always future; it also has a modal sense indicating prediction.
(Probably the future sense is actually derived from the prediction sense, because all statements about the future are to at least some degree predictions, but predictions can be made about uncertain facts about the present and past as well, as in this case.)
Right, as I said, this is the modal sense of will which indicates a prediction, not the numerically more common future sense.
It's the same sort of thing as saying "ah, that'll be the postman" upon hearing the doorbell. Of course it might be somebody else, since predictions can always be wrong. But more importantly, whoever it is is already there -- there's no meaning of futurity.
I'm not sure why your nationality matters to the question. As far as I know, this bit of grammar works the same in all the English-speaking countries.
You've proved too much, I'm afraid. If your argument were to be upheld, that would mean will ought never be used at all, since all talk of the future is prediction and all prediction is fallible.
Of course. Same here in the US. But it carries just the slightest bit of shame if you haven't. "Of course you read the news every day, don't you? Everyone does. Then you will of course have seen the story..."
Throw an adverb in there and see if the grammatical construction makes more sense to you. "As you will undoubtably have seen...", for instance, expresses a presumption that the listener shares a context with the speaker. Sometimes it is used to suggest that even if the listener hasn't seen [X], then they should have (and perhaps should feel vaguely ashamed for not being on top of it!). It's a similar locution to "as you are no doubt aware..."
But that assumes context that doesn't exist, the sentence certainly could work, you wouldnt correct the sentence "He went to New York" by saying that we can't be certain that every man has been to New York and changing it to "He might have been to New York"
I think this is a bad question because there are a couple possible answers.
C and D are definitely wrong
B is best. This is a relatively normal phrase to use to base the conversation in a common reference point (here, the news).
A is grammatically correct, but unusual. It implies the listener hasn't paid any attention to the news. It could only really make sense in a context where the speaker knows that the listener doesn't pay attention to the news. If it would ever be used in real life, it would probably be in a conversation where both have been talking about how the listener doesn't pay attention to the news.
I would choose a). In Slavic languages — Ukrainian, Russian, Polish — semantically, that's exactly how we say it: "could see" (would see) (or literally "could would see"). Ukraine, level A2-B1.
I agree that it is correct grammar, but the likelihood of using future perfect in this context, for a learner, is not good. Honestly, some of the minutia that is taught in these classes seems unnecessary. Work on diction and fluency and you'll be better off in most cases
If it's still being discussed in the news, or more realistically there's an available newspaper discussing it, there isn't a need for past tense there, is there?
B is the best option, but the correct answer is "As you may have seen in the news," or "As you will see in the news soon" depending on what they're trying to convey.
Nobody says it like that. Its B but i see 0 need for the 'have' here
Heres the most natural way to say this:
As you'll/you will see in the news, our town will be receiving some recognition this year.
Literally nobody uses the future perfect in day to day speech, it sounds overly formal and even literary. You will only have seen this mode of speech in certain styles of novel writing.
As an American, we do use the future perfect less than many other English speakers, but the issue is more that we fail to notice when we do use it. B is perfectly fine in AmE, just maybe a bit stiff.
B. Will have seen.
It's the "future perfect" tense.
Brings to mind one of my favorite bits of writing:
“One of the major problems encountered in time travel is not that of becoming your own father or mother. There is no problem in becoming your own father or mother that a broad-minded and well-adjusted family can't cope with. There is no problem with changing the course of history—the course of history does not change because it all fits together like a jigsaw. All the important changes have happened before the things they were supposed to change and it all sorts itself out in the end.
The major problem is simply one of grammar, and the main work to consult in this matter is Dr. Dan Streetmentioner's Time Traveler's Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations. It will tell you, for instance, how to describe something that was about to happen to you in the past before you avoided it by time-jumping forward two days in order to avoid it. The event will be described differently according to whether you are talking about it from the standpoint of your own natural time, from a time in the further future, or a time in the further past and is further complicated by the possibility of conducting conversations while you are actually traveling from one time to another with the intention of becoming your own mother or father.
Most readers get as far as the Future Semiconditionally Modified Subinverted Plagal Past Subjunctive Intentional before giving up; and in fact in later editions of the book all pages beyond this point have been left blank to save on printing costs.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy skips lightly over this tangle of academic abstraction, pausing only to note that the term "Future Perfect" has been abandoned since it was discovered not to be.”
- Douglas Adams, The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe
I knew this was Douglas Adams before getting to the end, and I haven’t even seen the quote before. What a fantastic writer.
RIMMER: Lister, it has happened. You can't change it, any more than you can change what you had for breakfast yesterday.
LISTER: Hey, it hasn't happened, has it? It has "will have going to have happened" happened, but it hasn't actually "happened" happened yet, actually.
RIMMER: Poppycock! It will be happened; it shall be going to be happening; it will be was an event that could will have been taken place in the future. Simple as that. Your bucket's been kicked, baby.
The more I hear about Red Dwarf the more I need to see it. I knew nothing of it before I started watching Mr Sunday Movies sometime this past year
Please, seek it out. You won't regret it.
Oh, to still have that ahead of you.
I may have to start a rewatch. 😁
Just have Lister delete them from your memory.
Along with all the Agatha Christie novels...
Hmm, or we could swing past a white hole perhaps...
A white hole?
So what is it?
As you will have seen?
I never heard that before. I have seen “As you have seen”.
Level 84. Intermediate
Seconded
Thirded
This is correct. But it would also come off as stilted in everyday speech.
"have seen" is more natural. Even "saw" would sound fine in casual conversation.
Technically correct but not practically correct. Nobody speaks or writes like this.
EDIT: Wow -- I stand corrected. I have never in my life stated "as you will have seen" or anything to that effect.
We do here in the UK. "As you will have seen" is pretty common.
In the US we would probably say "as you may have seen". We wouldn't assume someone has been paying attention to the news.
It changes tense but I think “as you would have seen” is also very common
As you would have seen if you'd be paying attention but clearly you weren't.
God forbid you assume people are informed.
Yep. Or, 'as you'll've seen...'
Canadian here, I'd use "As you would have seen..." I know 'will' isn't wrong there, but it feels like it to me.
You're completely changing the meaning there. In your example the person has most likely not seen the news.
No. "As you would have seen on the news ..." means the same as "As you saw on the news ..."
"As you would have seen on the news if X ..." would imply they didn't see something on the news because of X.
Ok, must be a dialect difference because that makes no sense in mine.
Maybe not where you're from, but it sounds perfectly natural to me. Native British English speaker.
I'm an American and it also sounds fine to me. A little formal but not unnatural.
They absolutely do.
It sounds normal to me
As an American I agree. I have never heard this phrase verbally but I would understand what it means if someone said it
The correct answer is B, as others have mentioned. It is a modal auxiliary verb in front of a verb phrase with perfect aspect (or perfect tense) to indicate something that has occurred at an earlier time (you seeing the news).
A. is grammatically acceptable, but the use of the present tense verb 'see' with the modal auxiliary 'would', suggests something ongoing, like 'As you would see on a map, our town is prone to flooding.' rather than something specific, like 'As you will have seen on the news, our town flooded last week.'
C. is incorrect as you would use the infinite form of the verb in front of 'to'. So, "are seeing" or maybe "are to see".
D. is a passive construction, so it would be you on the news being seen.
A works if the sentence before is “what do you mean you haven’t been watching the news?”
That would be "would have seen."
Hmmm, OK, if the preceding sentence were “what do you mean you don’t watch the news?”
I think you still need the "have" because it's referring to a news story that has already been shown. In other words, the act of seeing the news item has already occurred at the time under consideration.
If it were a massive and ongoing story that was still continuing, maybe it would work - "As you would see in the news, crime is a frequent issue in our town."
Yeah, I’m imagining a very slow news day where it keeps getting repeated
I feel like it could work if the speaker is responding to a question.
"What's so good about your town, anyway?"
"As you would see in the news, our town is to receive some recognition this year."
yep. As you would see [if you looked at the news now] ...
The answer is B, but there are also other forms that could make sense here that just aren't options given. The other options here don't make grammatical sense.
"As you may have seen" is maybe a better answer, but "As you will have seen" is correct.
I'm not 109% sure but I think "will have seen" is somewhat idiomatic in this context? As it means "I expect you have seen".
It looks like you have been downvoted but THIS IS THE CORRECT ANSWER. Though it is the future perfect tense which grammatically puts 'seeing' in the future from 'now', idiomatically it is the same as saying 'I am sure you have seen it already'.
I might have been downvoted for saying "I'm not 109% sure" 😂
Exactly. We expect an absolute minimum 110% certainty here.
What is the future imperfect tense of that?
Both are correct Difference is"will have seen" mesns the speaker is sure that the listener has seen X. "May gave seen" means the speaker thinks it is likely that the listener has seen X but the speaker is not sure.
It sounds totally natural, and quite commonplace, to me (British) but I can see how it might sound weird if you look at it in a particularly way.
Don't really know how to explain it grammatically, but it is sort of a 'will of presumption'. 'As you have seen' is too definitive, and 'as you will see' is too future and doesn't fit with talking about something you're assuming you both already know about.
This is the modal will that indicates predictions; it doesn't actually have a sense of futurity. "That'll be the postman" when the bell rings and you're expecting a package is the same usage.
It's B.
The people saying the wording is too presumptuous should probably consider that the speaker's presumption about your knowledge is part of what is being communicated. If you change the wording to avoid that then you're changing the meaning.
Wording something presumptuously like that can also be a way of politely giving someone an out if you suspect they're not familiar with something they should be.
Person A: As I'm sure you are aware,
it's Jane's birthday next Wednesdaythe figures for the last quarter are due next week.Person B: Oh, yes,
I bought her a card yesterdayI'm halfway through compiling them. (NoI didn'tI'm not. Thank God he reminded me.)Edit: The birthday is probably a bad example because only an eccentric would talk like that in an informal setting like talking about a birthday but in a formal setting it works.
i would have chosen something like "as you would/may have seen" or "as you have been seeing" but i think it's b (more formal, future tense).
B
will have seen
This is very tricksy! Agree with the other commenters - will have seen. The tricksy bit, though, is that it looks like future perfect but I don't think it actually is.
If you said: As you have seen in the news... it means the same as As you will have seen in the news...
So I think the 'will' here isn't about the future, it's about expressing certainty. Like saying "I'm sure you heard about this already (but I'm going to give you more information)."
It's B. Future perfect, used for a future action that will take place before another future action. First action: seeing the news, second action: receiving recognition.
As you will have seen in the news, our town is to receive some recognition this year.
I think this is the best explanation so far because it explains the grammar of it all (two future actions where one action happens before the other). Future perfect is a nightmare tense for English language learners. “Hey, I’m going to talk about two things that will happen in the future, BUT I’m going to talk about one of them in a future where it’s already happened!” That’s not confusing at all!
Others say it’s B. Is it supposed to mean “must have seen”?
Yes. The news was, for whatever reason, impossible for the person addressed to have missed.
b
B
It’s B, but it seems a bit clunky to me for some reason. I don’t think it’s grammatically correct, but I would say “as you would have seen” or “would’ve”
Man. I’m a native English speaker and I see people posting questions to these English tests that I myself have a hard time figuring out. Seems like a lot of them use semi-uncommon/outdated speech, must be fairly advanced unless I’m dumber than I thought. Either that or speech has become so muddled with colloquialisms and slang that the proper grammar is forgotten.
Yes it's B. Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy. I discovered the game version on a computer many years ago. One of the best games ever 😃
All I can say is that I am glad that I learned English as a native speaker and I feel so sorry for all English language learners who are tested to this level of detail.
I wouldn’t use any of these. That’s really weird phrasing.
B is the only one that is grammatically correct.
tbh i would use “will see,” which is not an option but sounds more natural as the sentence is worded like an announcement.
I would pick B (as in “you have probably already seen this in the news”) but A doesn’t sound wrong.
Definitely B.
They are probably looking for B. A would also work depending on context though. A is for passive aggressively telling someone who doesn't look at the news to look at the news about the town. B is for reminding someone of what they should have already seen in the news.
“Might have seen” sound more appropriate to me but we don’t have that option 😅
Will have seen.
B
But in real life I would say "would have seen", not "will have seen".
Will have seen.
'As you have seen in the news, our town is due to receive recognition this year.' is how I'd phrase it as a native English speaker, but unfortunately that isn't an option
It’s B, but it’s ok OP. Nobody teaches or uses the future perfect tense correctly
It's B, though D is amusingly grammatically correct and somewhat sensible (with a very different meaning, of course).
A is correct, but it says that the speaker believes the listener doesn't actually follow the news.
B is almost certainly the answer they wanted you to give. It illustrates the "future in the past" (which is more common in French, Spanish, and Italian).
C is simply not English.
D is grammatically correct, but it means that the town is finally getting some recognition because you personally were seen in the news, which seems rather far-fetched.
Is it just me but I feel like I would’ve said “as you would have/ as you would’ve seen…”
None of the listed options are correct as written. The sentence should be:
As you have seen in the news, our town is to receive some recognition this year.
If this was a test question, it’s either:
• Poorly written, or
• Expecting “have seen” but forgot to include it
I haven't seen this in the comments yet, but go ahead and look up "epistemic future". I believe there is a short wordreference thread on this. The future perfect is often used to assume or suppose that something should or must have already been done at the time to speaking.
B for me as the speaker is implying you might have seen the news.
If it were A, the more accurate one is “can see” as if the speaker is presently with you looking at the news.
I would answer D.
But I am level 84, intermediate. So I may be wrong
"Will have seen" is correct. It's not common (like I might say it once every few months) but it is accurate. It is conveying a very similar meaning to: "you probably saw" or "you would have seen," or, more generally, "you probably already know this..." It also has a fairly formal tone, not something you would use in a really casual conversation with friends.
It’s D
B is the correct answer, but I like D more because it implies a story where the town gained recognition for noticing the listener. Maybe he's a notorious thief they finally caught and this is the mayor gloating in front of his cell.
I can understand your confusion. I’m a native speaker and don’t like any of the options.
B
B. Will have seen.
The normal usage would be « as you would have seen ».
« Will » may be grammatically correct, but the usage is a bit off.
"Our town is to receive" indicates future ig option A? Does it make sense?
Will have seen. I'm not a fan of the wording but it's correct. Now to practice, try making a better sentence. Personally, I would say, "As you may have heard.....", or "You may have heard that.......
B is correct. but I would never say it like that in real life lol. this is extremely formal and would probably only be phrased like this by a government official addressing a crowd (at least in my experience. USA)
"Would have seen" or "Might have seen" would make more sense than any of these answers.
You know you can take screenshots instead of crappy photos of your screen, right?
Oh I know! I took a photo but I mostly take screenshots, if that heats you sm up sm maybe just scroll and help posts with clearer images
By the way, native English speakers do not use the abbreviation “sm”. I’m not even sure what word you mean there, that’s how unclear it is, which is probably why we don’t use it. Something to be aware of is that ESL classes in non English speaking countries often teach abbreviations that we don’t use.
Thank you!
B is correct but when you really think about it, it doesn’t make logical sense
They cannot be certain that any particular person watches the news/listens to the radio etc.
The news is not important enough for everyone to be aware of it
Fully correct would be “may have” or “have probably/likely”
It makes sense because will isn't always future; it also has a modal sense indicating prediction.
(Probably the future sense is actually derived from the prediction sense, because all statements about the future are to at least some degree predictions, but predictions can be made about uncertain facts about the present and past as well, as in this case.)
I’m English. I understand but it still doesn’t really make sense as there’s still no guarantee that person will see it in the news.
Right, as I said, this is the modal sense of will which indicates a prediction, not the numerically more common future sense.
It's the same sort of thing as saying "ah, that'll be the postman" upon hearing the doorbell. Of course it might be somebody else, since predictions can always be wrong. But more importantly, whoever it is is already there -- there's no meaning of futurity.
I'm not sure why your nationality matters to the question. As far as I know, this bit of grammar works the same in all the English-speaking countries.
I state I’m English because massive amounts of Redditors assume people using English are American and I don’t want people assuming that.
You have showed why this doesn’t really make sense in a true logical way as “will” as a prediction can be incorrect.
In fact, I’m now going to treat this as “you will, (if you look for it) see it in the news”
You've proved too much, I'm afraid. If your argument were to be upheld, that would mean will ought never be used at all, since all talk of the future is prediction and all prediction is fallible.
"Now, young Skywalker, you will die,"
He was right, just not with the timing
Of course. Same here in the US. But it carries just the slightest bit of shame if you haven't. "Of course you read the news every day, don't you? Everyone does. Then you will of course have seen the story..."
Throw an adverb in there and see if the grammatical construction makes more sense to you. "As you will undoubtably have seen...", for instance, expresses a presumption that the listener shares a context with the speaker. Sometimes it is used to suggest that even if the listener hasn't seen [X], then they should have (and perhaps should feel vaguely ashamed for not being on top of it!). It's a similar locution to "as you are no doubt aware..."
It makes sense if you read "will be" as "probably is." Some people use it that way.
"As you have probably seen in the news...."
But that assumes context that doesn't exist, the sentence certainly could work, you wouldnt correct the sentence "He went to New York" by saying that we can't be certain that every man has been to New York and changing it to "He might have been to New York"
It’s totally different. “He went to NY” is describing someone who went to NY, having gone to NY.
“You will have seen it in the news”…no mate, I’ve been hiking in the wilderness for the last month.
The speaker can't be certain in an objective sense, but they can speak with certainty
This statement is implying so many things it’s basically an sat question. What a dumb way to test someone’s ability to speak English.
I’m a native speaker and I hate all these options
I think this is a bad question because there are a couple possible answers.
C and D are definitely wrong
B is best. This is a relatively normal phrase to use to base the conversation in a common reference point (here, the news).
A is grammatically correct, but unusual. It implies the listener hasn't paid any attention to the news. It could only really make sense in a context where the speaker knows that the listener doesn't pay attention to the news. If it would ever be used in real life, it would probably be in a conversation where both have been talking about how the listener doesn't pay attention to the news.
I would choose a). In Slavic languages — Ukrainian, Russian, Polish — semantically, that's exactly how we say it: "could see" (would see) (or literally "could would see"). Ukraine, level A2-B1.
B isn't that good, but the others are worse
B is fine, it is perfectly fine in American English.
Will have is future perfect tense.
https://www.lsi.edu/en/future-perfect-tense
I agree that it is correct grammar, but the likelihood of using future perfect in this context, for a learner, is not good. Honestly, some of the minutia that is taught in these classes seems unnecessary. Work on diction and fluency and you'll be better off in most cases
It’s grammatically correct but awkward. No one talks like that in normal conversations.
Course they do. “As you’ll have seen”
I talk like that.
Well, then you talk in a strange manner LOL. I don’t know what else to tell you.
Why doesn't A work?
Edit: from my perspective they seem to mean about the same thing, except B assumes you watch the news, and A assumes you don't
No, A would only work if it was "would have seen", and you were saying something like, "As you would have seen in the news if you had watched it"
If it's still being discussed in the news, or more realistically there's an available newspaper discussing it, there isn't a need for past tense there, is there?
Option E
B is the best option, but the correct answer is "As you may have seen in the news," or "As you will see in the news soon" depending on what they're trying to convey.
Will have seen - but that's a bit presumptuous. May have seen would actually be better.
The rest make no sense.
I think it’s ‘B’, but the word “will”, in this context, is superfluous:
”As you have seen in the news, . . . “
or
”As you may have seen in the news, . . . “
'As you have seen' is too definitive. It claims something with 100% certainty that can't, probably, be known.
'May have seen' implies quite a lot of uncertainty.
'Will have seen,' to me, falls somewhere inbetween.
How is “will have seen” any less definitive than “have seen”?
Honestly, I don't know. But it feels less definitive. It's less past tense, so it's less concrete maybe?
I would use 'will have' in situations like this, in speech. But not 'have' unless I've specifically seen them in the act of watching the news.
Nobody says it like that. Its B but i see 0 need for the 'have' here
Heres the most natural way to say this:
As you'll/you will see in the news, our town will be receiving some recognition this year.
Literally nobody uses the future perfect in day to day speech, it sounds overly formal and even literary. You will only have seen this mode of speech in certain styles of novel writing.
B sounds perfectly natural to me as native British speaker.
As an American, we do use the future perfect less than many other English speakers, but the issue is more that we fail to notice when we do use it. B is perfectly fine in AmE, just maybe a bit stiff.