A sentence is provided in indirect speech. From the four given options, choose the one that most accurately conveys the sentence in its corresponding direct speech. The lawyer said that had the evidence not been tampered with, the verdict could have been different.
- (a)“If the evidence had not tampered with, the verdict could change,” said the lawyer.
- (b)“If the evidence were not tampered with, the verdict could have changed,” the lawyer said.
- (c)“Had the evidence not been tampered with, the verdict could have been different,” said the lawyer.
- (d)“Had not the evidence tampered, the verdict may differ,” said he.
Answer
Why
Correct — C. The reported clause is an inverted third conditional: 'had the evidence not been tampered with' means 'if the evidence had not been tampered with'.
Reported speech leaves the past perfect and could have been as they are, so converting back changes neither. The clause has no pronoun or time word to change either.
So the lawyer's words return unchanged inside quotation marks → option (c).
Why the others are wrong
- (a)“If the evidence had not tampered with, the verdict could change,” said the lawyer. — Drops been: 'had not tampered with' makes the evidence the one doing the tampering. 'Could change' also loses the past result of could have been different.
- (b)“If the evidence were not tampered with, the verdict could have changed,” the lawyer said. — were not tampered with is a present-unreal condition; the lawyer's condition is about the past, had not been. The result is also reworded as could have changed.
- (d)“Had not the evidence tampered, the verdict may differ,” said he. — 'Had not the evidence tampered' drops been and with, so the evidence again does the tampering. 'May differ' turns a past unreal result into a present possibility.
Concept
A third conditional imagines a different past: if + had + past participle, then would/could/might have + past participle.
Formal English can drop if and invert: 'If the evidence had not been tampered with' becomes 'Had the evidence not been tampered with'. Both mean the same.
These verb forms do not backshift, so the conditional keeps its verbs in both direct and indirect speech; pronouns and time words still change when there are any.
The verb is tamper with, and in the passive the preposition stays at the end: 'the evidence was tampered with'. Options that drop been or with turn the evidence into the doer.
Key facts
- Had + subject + past participle, without if, is the inverted form of a third conditional.
- Past perfect and modal + have + past participle do not change in reported speech.
- Tamper takes with: tamper with evidence, and in the passive, the evidence was tampered with.
- A third conditional pairs had + past participle with would, could or might have + past participle.
Study next
Common traps
- Choosing the familiar if-form in option (a) — it drops been, so the evidence does the tampering.
- Expecting every conversion to change a tense — here nothing in the clause shifts, so the lawyer's words stand as reported.
An indirect-to-direct item built on the same inverted third conditional is keyed at 17 Sep 2025, 16:00, English Q.23: 'had he known earlier' becomes 'Had I known earlier', where he becomes I and the verbs stay put.
English Q.9 of this shift tests the inverted form as a blank: 'Had they submitted the proposal earlier, they ___ the funding' takes would have received.
Related PYQs
No directly related past PYQ was found.