Which one? the teacher said "second option' why not first and third?

Its 2 "Had been" and "were" are interchangeable in this example, but since it's an imagined situation, the second part needs to be "would have made" (out of the choices here)

The first part of 1 & 3 (were and had been) work-they’re both in a past tense. Both options fail though, because would make is present tense. If you had been born a century ago, it would not make a difference in your life (now) because you would have died already.

When I read it without looking at the answers, I automatically filled in the blanks with #1. But #2 is technically the proper grammar to use.

Any of the first three is completely fine.

In reality 1, 2, and 3 are all acceptable to someone who isn't a grammar teacher. To me these kinds of quiz questions are tedious and frustrating. I feel sorry for people who have English teachers like this. Even scientific articles published in academic journals can get away with using 1, 2, or 3.

I can suppose it’s some kind of the third conditional sentence (unrealistic situation in past), with a scheme “if + past perfect, … would/could have v3 …”

It's a bad question, like many that have previously been posted. We *could* discuss it (and I expect we will), but there's really not a single "correct" answer.

Both the first and second options are grammatically correct. They have slightly different meanings. The first option is in the present tense, subjunctive mood, so it's asking you to consider the question as if it were currently happening (i.e. take the perspective of someone who is in the process of living through their life). The second option is in the past perfect tense, so it's asking you to consider the question as if it already happened (i.e. take the perspective of someone looking back on their life). The third option is grammatically incorrect because it mixes the two different tenses.

Both answers need to be past tense of some form, which only applies to the second response

All the other answers mix tenses, 2 is the only answer that doesn’t. Answer 1 starts in a past tense way but then asks about the future. Answer 3 does the same.

According to how I was taught at uni, It's had been-would have made, though I guess an argument could be made for option 1 as well. If we interpret the sentence to refer to changes that would've occurred throughout your life then we use ''would have made'' which sets a point in the past. You being born occurs before that point so we use past perfect ''had been''. If we flip it around we get ''What difference do you think it would have made to your life, had you been born a century ago'' which makes the cause and effect link more clear. As for the first option, you could argue since there is no set time, that they're asking you about changes you're experiencing now in which case ''would make'' is referring to present day and ''were born'' is used since there is no past action so you don't need to use past perfect to imply it was even further in the past. Someone feel free to correct me though, it's been a while since my time at uni and I'm not even working in that field.

2 is grammatically correct but in my opinion in casual speech you are more likely to hear 1 or 3

Past perfect (had been) would be used here because of the relation to another event (the passing of the century - You can make this more clear by rewriting the sentence to say: Suppose you had been born a century before now) Then the verbs need to agree, so we'd use the conditional past perfect (would have made)

First of all who talks like that

All are correct, language isn’t written is stone and all would be used and understood by native speakers.

Conditionals, this applies to hypothetical situations , or situations impossible to occur in the past, present or future. You have to use the third conditional which form is past perfect (had been) + would have /past participle/ (would have made).

Teacher is correct. Though the first option would be heard frequently among the general public.

Since too many comments are saying otherwise; mixing tenses is not ungrammatical, it is absolutely okay to mix tenses. What most people learning English are taught however, even in native schooling, is that you should refrain from doing so because it can be confusing during the learning process. As for the actual question, you are correct that the first three options are all legitimate choices but their usage can lead to slightly odd conclusive answers as a result. It is best to assume that tense matching is also being considered whenever confronted with questions like this (or ask your teacher) in which case the second option is the 'correct one'. * Supposing you were born a century ago, what difference do you think it would make to your life? This could be explained as simply being born 100 years ago rather than whenever you were actually born. An answer might be something as simple as "I'd be in a nursing home now". This is using tense mixing, but resolves the question in a way that is absolutely valid despite obviously not answering in the way that was intended. * Supposing you had been born a century ago, what difference do you think it would make to your life? This is almost exactly the same as the above option just using the past perfect 'had been'.

2 is grammatically correct, but I’ve heard many native speakers use 1 or 3. Only 4 sticks out as objectively incorrect to me.

1, 2 and 3 all work (3 is possible since you could still be living, and experiencing your life, if you were born 100 years ago).

The second is grammatically correct, but I would more likely say the first in regular conversation.

2 would make the most sense I guess but all of them are correct but 4

Honestly 1, 2 and 3 are fine to use, but 2 is technically correct.

You don’t use present tense to talk about the life of somebody who is dead. That’s why 1 and 3 don’t work.

Two is probably grammatically more correct, but nobody is going to bat an eye if you say 1 or 3. Four is wrong all around though.

Only number 1 can be correct. If you use "had been", it requires "would have been", as in number 2, but this implies your life is over. Numbers 3 and 4 are clearly wrong.

2 is the only one that maintains the same tense. The others are still understandable and wouldn't seem out of place in casual conversation, but this is just about being technically correct.

This just has to do with the rubric your instructor has given you for which forms pair together. It’s not a question of how English is spoken. For me, #1 is hands down the best answer.

The first option is the one American English speakers will use casually. It’s fine, honestly, and if you’re in North America it’s your first choice for informal spoken English. The second option is the “technically correct” option. This is how you’ll see it in writing. Americans would consider it a bit stuffy. The third option has a minor tense mismatch. It’s still within the bounds of what a native speaker might say, especially if they’ve been drinking.

I'm okay with 1, 2, and 3! 3 is a bit weird but if you live an exceptionally long life it works :)

The word "supposing" is the signal that this sentence is in the subjunctive mood, and because the events did not actually happen, the verbs must be in the past perfect tense. [Suppose, supposing and what if - Cambridge Grammar](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/suppose-supposing-and-what-if#google_vignette) When we refer to something that did not happen (something hypothetical), we use the past perfect: > > >

Grammatically for learner lessons, #2 puts us in the past as we should be, then keeps us in the past as in most situations it should. .#1 & #3 are actually also fine looking it as a native. As a native and not a scholar, I have to got off intuition to why I’d happily say (actually prefer to say) #1 or #3. And I think it’s because we’re talking about a person we know to be living’s life. The question puts us mentally into a situation a century ago but asks us to look presently from there. It’s not how were oranges different a century ago, or how would the life of an average man 100 years ago have differed from today. The question asks you to imagine yourself in the past. If you asked a man in his death bed the question, you could only ask #2. But for most of us we can consider how the rest of our lives would be, or how our current situation would be. So you can ask us #1, 2 or 3. But that’s the same if you change the question, if it was ‘supposing you were/had been born with green skin, what difference do you think it … to your life?’ Both ‘would make’ and ‘would have made’ would be fine, they’d just be asking about different periods of our life. This century or last, it makes no difference. And for that matter you can ask #4, it just reset the frame of our life to starting from birth rather than imagining I’m my age but 100 years ago. Also, I’d start the question ‘suppose’ rather than ‘supposing’.

The first part of the sentence is about something in the past. Since no one in the class is more than 100 years old, it is also a counterfactual. That means it takes the past subjunctive. We use back-shifting for that: the present subjunctive is “If I were” and the past subjunctive is “If she had gone.” (Informally, you will often hear “If I/he/she/it was,” but in formal written English, the correct conjugation for the present subjunctive is always *were.*) So that rules out 1 and 4. I don’t think 3 is completely wrong. It’s the same conditional mood as, “**If** you had been .... your life **would be** different today.” I don’t think number three would sound strange or confusing, especially in a conversation. But a smart-aleck might answer the third question with, “If I’d been born a hundred years ago, by now I would be retired or dead.” The question is really asking what your life **would have been** like during the past hundred years. So, it’s a past conditional.

Any of the first three work. The second is the least informal.

The difference is the tense (past/current/future). 1 and 3 switches tense mid sentence. (Past to future)

It's a conditional sentence. It didn't really happen, but let's pretend it did for arguments sake. These verbs need conditional tenses, thus the conditional past tense would have and would have been are required to situate the action in conditional space/time.

2 is the best answer. 1 is generally acceptable and most people wouldn’t see a problem with its use in the context of the sentence, but the difference made would have been in the past, so the past conditional “would have made” is a better answer than the present/future conditional “would make”.

I'm a native English speaker and I've written professionally. I agree with you that either answer would be correct in conversational use, but your techer is looking for a verb form that communicates that this is a hypothetical situation. The best answer is 'had been - would have made.'

The second one is correct in formal written English, but you’ll probably hear all except 4 in casual speech. Most people aren’t that careful with the subjunctive, if they’re even conscious of it at all.

This situation is in the past and hypothetical. Therefore, the first needs to be in the past or past perfect tense and indicative mood. The second option needs to be past or past perfect tense and subjunctive mood. Option 1: past indicative, present subjunctive (This is technically asking how your life would be different today if you were a hundred years old). Option 3: past perfect indicative, present subjunctive (This is also asking how your life would be different today if you were a hundred years old). Option 4: present indicative, past perfect subjunctive. (This doesn't work at all). Option 3: past perfect indicative, past perfect subjunctive (This works). Even though 1 and 2 are wrong, you will hear them in everyday conversation. However, if you learn the best way and get sloppy, you may still be understood. If you learn sloppy and get sloppy, you probably won't be understood.

"Would make" refers to something in the future whereas the proposed scenario would be in the past.

Speaking as a teacher/educator, the questions that get shared here are often appallingly ambiguous (when they aren’t just wrong) and are part of why I swore never again to use multiple choice testing as long ago as 1997.

2 is the prescriptive correct answer, and the one I'd use because I'm like that. It's an imaginary situation, so the tenses need to go back one notch in the past. So past "were" becomes past perfect "had been" and so on. Going by what I see on the internet though, this is a "rule" that is more and more frequently ignored, particularly so in US English. I dislike this because it does sometimes change the meaning and can lead to ambiguity.

Native speakers would use any of the first, second, or third. They all sound right and everyone would know what you meant. Technically, the second one is the correct one, but the meaning is clear regardless. I don’t know if you’ve learned this word yet, but it is very appropriate for describing your teacher. 🤭 Pedantic — it means excessively focused on minor details or rules, often to the point of being annoying or tedious.

I would be dead. horse v head injury at 6 (2000) and sever epilepsy after that. brain surgery at 12 which would not be available in 1907. From 1930-1960 we learned a whole lot of neuroscience that if unavailable I would not be half as functional as I am today.

\#2 is correct because of the assumption that if you'd been born 100 years earlier you wouldn't still be alive today. Hence your life would be referenced in the past tense. 1 and 3 I think a lot of people would probably use, but in this hypothetical it would only be correct if you were still alive or acting as if the question was also being asked in the present... just 100 years ago. Kind of an odd distinction and a lot of native speakers would probably say 1 and 3, and maybe if that was posed using 1 or 3 you'd get a snarky response like "I'd be dead." Edit to add: Technically, now that I think about it more, #2 is correct because the "it" in the second part of the sentence can reference the act of being born which means it would always be a past tense question.

Option one is by far the most common way English speakers say that, in my experience. I think she said option two because of the consistency of tense, but I still disagree.

*Were-would have made* is better than any of these options.

I’m going with none of them are correct. I don’t think you can use that arrangement. Rewritten it becomes“What difference do you think it would have made to your life, if you had been born a century ago?” Or “what difference do you think it would make to your life, if you were born a century ago?” Or “what difference do you think it would make to your life, if you had been born a century ago?” None of them are correct. The rewritten sentences of 1 and 3 are closest to being correct but is just a complicated way of asking “What do you think it would be like if you had been lived through the last 100 years and were still alive?” which is also just a weird question in general. Whereas number 2 rewritten makes no sense. It’s asking “how would your life, being born in the current century, be changed by your birth a century ago?” It’s two different lives. It’s the same as asking “what difference would have been made to who you are now, if you had been another person from the start?” No difference “would have” been “made” to me because I was a completely different person from the start. What I think it was trying to ask and would be a more correct way is “how are the two lives different?”or “what difference would there be between the two lives?”

#2 is correct according to the brain, but #1 is correct according to the heart

Both 'were' and 'had been' work for the first part interchangeably, but for the second part, 'would have made' is more correct. This doesn't make 'would make' is necessarily *wrong*, as others have said, but to me they mean different things, and 'would have made' is more suitable for this question.

2, because that's how third conditional is conformed. The "if" clause in this sentence is introduced with "suppose", but it still applies. In this case you must use the third conditional because both your birthday and the effect on your life are things in the past.

1,2, and 3 are all correct. I'll fight anyone who disagrees (I won't I'm going to bed). Though technically, 2 is more correct than the others, grammatically speaking

All of them except 4 sound fine to my ears

I feel like the second part definitely has to be "would have made" so the only one that fits would be #2.

As everyone points out, it's 2. But when speaking there is a huge part to take into consideration: A big part of this - for native speakers - is also the thought process while speaking. You may start the sentence "considering you were" without yet properly laying out the end of the sentence or the way you want to structure the question. Speaking is always a little less 'correct' because thought processes can get in the way. We re-formulate questions especially when they are too long. We may end sentences weird or unlogical compared to the start because we don't typically think in structured sentences. There is something we want to know and we rawdog the formulation of that thought when speaking to get across a point/question/answer. Of course, you should learn grammar correctly, but I wouldn't lose my mind over such things when speaking to another person

Although it feels slightly off to me, I think that’s because I’m used to the contracted “you’d been”. 2 is the correct statement.

Two is technically correct, however one is more "colloquial".

people are right that this is a bad question, but a lot of Americans acting like the perfect is optional everywhere when that’s just an American thing. In formal grammar, 1 would be weird as the focus of the dependant clause would be on the birth, not a later situation caused by the birth, for which we use the perfect

I want to add to what others are saying. While many native speakers would naturally say 1 or 3, I feel like the meaning is different. I think "... would make ..." implies "How would your life be different at the age you are now?", since it's present tense, while "... would have made ..." implies "How would your entire life have been different?"

It is really a complex question.

The funny thing about this is that native speakers would not even blink twice at hearing 1,2, or 3 lol. Grammatically speaking it’s technically #2.

No, if you were born a century ago, you’d be speaking about yourself in the past tense in this context. 1 and 3 don’t do that. They switch tenses. Don’t switch tenses in the same sentence.

The first answer is right. You use the subjunctive "were" because it's a contrary-to-fact statement. (You weren't born a century ago.)

\#1/#3 are past/present tense \#2 is past/past tense

It's the tense. The first and third option used future tense to describe your past. The question is asking about your life, and you've already started living it.

The third conditional is actually the only appropriate one here, given the uncertainty of the situation. Plus, you need to keep both tenses connected to convey the same idea - that's why a mixed conditional structure wouldn't be suitable in this case.

The thing that bugs me about this is that I would literally never say "to your life" in this sort of sentence, so none of the answers feel good, lol.