Find the part of the sentence that contains an error: If the allegations were substantiated (1)/ and procedural lapses proven, the committee might have (2)/ had enough reason to initiate an internal probe (3)/ which never occurred. (4)

Correct — B. The sentence crosses two conditional patterns.

Part (1) sets the if-clause in the past simple: were substantiated, with were understood again before proven.

Part (2) starts the result with might have, and with had in part (3) that builds might have had, the result form of an unreal past.

On the key's reading the fault is in part (2). Keep the if-clause and drop might have.

The result is then past simple too: the committee had enough reason → option (b).

Why the others are wrong

• (a)
  (1) — were substantiated stands on the key's reading. In a real past condition a past-simple if-clause is normal: If the allegations were substantiated, the committee had grounds. The clash lies in the result, part (2).
• (c)
  (3) — had enough reason to initiate is sound in either repair: had is the main verb after the committee, or the participle in might have had. Reason to initiate is a normal noun + to-infinitive.
• (d)
  (4) — which never occurred is a past simple relative clause about the probe. It tells us the probe did not happen and needs no change.

Conditionals pair a form in the if-clause with a form in the result.

Second conditional, unreal present or future: If + past simple, would/might + base verb. If the charges were proven, the committee might act.

Third conditional, unreal past: If + had + past participle, would/might have + past participle. If the charges had been proven, the committee might have acted.

A real past condition can take the past simple on both sides: if the charges were proven, the committee had grounds.

Key facts

• Second conditional: If + past simple, would/might + base verb.
• Third conditional: If + had + past participle, would/might have + past participle.
• A real condition about the past can take the past simple in both clauses: If he was at the meeting, he heard the announcement.
• Proved and proven are both standard past participles of prove.

Common traps

• Blaming proven in part (2), when proved and proven are both standard participles
• Treating might have had as ungrammatical in itself, when the fault the key marks is its clash with the past-simple if-clause
• Reading lapses proven as a missing verb, when were is understood from the first clause

No directly related past PYQ was found.