If Rechard was

[notletrest]

Dear teachers,
How do you think of these?
" 1.If Rechard was at the recepion last night, he must have been presented to the president.
2.If Rechard spoke at the recepion last night, he must have been presented to the president."
I don't think they are right.(EC86.5.20),because they expressed facts opposite to the past. If 1. is right, so is 2.
Thanks!

[bhaisahab]

Dear teachers,
What do you think of these?
" 1.If Rechard was at the recepion last night, he must have been presented to the president.
2.If Rechard spoke at the recepion last night, he must have been presented to the president."
I don't think they are right.(EC86.5.20),because they expressed facts opposite to the past. If 1. is right, so is 2.
Thanks!

They are both correct.

[emsr2d2]

The use of "If he was there" only suggests that either the speaker doesn't know for sure that he was there, or that someone else has said he was there and the speaker is making an assumption based on that statement.

If A is true, then B must be true.

If the speaker knew for a fact that Rechard wasn't at the reception, he would have said:

If Rechard had been at the reception, he would have been presented to the president.

[notletrest]

They are both correct.

According to you, we can obtain the conclusion: In the "if" clause of condition, we can use simple past tense or past perfect tense to express facts opposite to the past at will. What do you think of it?
Thanks!

[notletrest]

The use of "If he was there" only suggests that either the speaker doesn't know for sure that he was there, or that someone else has said he was there and the speaker is making an assumption based on that statement.

If A is true, then B must be true.

If the speaker knew for a fact that Rechard wasn't at the reception, he would have said:

If Rechard had been at the reception, he would have been presented to the president.

I completely accept your idea. From you I got to know the if clause of the original 1# (If Rechard was at the reception laslt night, he must have been presented to the president,) has nothing to do with the subjunctive mood,but it is in indicative mood. It doesn't suggest the assumption opposite the past reality. Am I right?
Thank you !
Thanks