are/will be against

[touchstone]

This is a test question.

If you drive after you drink, you are ____ against the law and risking your life as well as the lives of others.
A. without
B. for
C. against

The answer key is C.
But I think the sentence should be if you drive after you've drunk, you will be against the law and risk your life as well as the others’.
What do you say?
Thanks in advance.

 

[Rover_KE]

It's a terrible test question with no grammatical single-word answer.

Where did you find it?

 

[jutfrank]

It looks like you've made a mistake in writing the question. Read again what you wrote.

If you use you will be instead of you are, this will change the sentence from a zero to a first conditional. There's no good reason to do that.

 

[Matthew Wai]

I think both "after you drink" and "after you've drunk" suggest that the "drinking" has already finished.

 

[touchstone]

It looks like you've made a mistake in writing the question. Read again what you wrote.

If you use you will be instead of you are, this will change the sentence from a zero to a first conditional. There's no good reason to do that.

I think for the context in the OP, it's better to use the first conditional. What do you say?

 

[Matthew Wai]

I think it is talking about a fact rather than a possibility, so the zero conditional is used there.

 

[emsr2d2]

Are you sure that the word "against" appeared in the original question and was also one of the suggested answers?

 

[touchstone]

Are you sure that the word "against" appeared in the original question and was also one of the suggested answers?

Sorry, that's my typo. "Against" didn't appear in the original question.

 

[emsr2d2]

No, of course not. If C is the correct answer, the resulting sentence will be:

If you drive after you drink, you are against against the law ...

That makes no sense.

 

[GoesStation]

Even with "against" removed from the question, none of the answers is natural. You can commit an act which is against the law, but that doesn't make you personally against the law.

 

[jutfrank]

I think for the context in the OP, it's better to use the first conditional. What do you say?

I think the zero is better.

Anyway, it's not right to say that somebody is (or will be) against the law. A person cannot 'be against the law', only an act can.

 

[touchstone]

What about the following sentence? Is it OK?

If you drive after you drink, that is ____ against the law

 

[teechar]

You still haven't told us the source of these sentences!

 

[Tarheel]

Driving after drinking alcoholic beverages is against the law.

If you drive after you drink you are acting against the law.

 

[Raymott]

A person cannot 'be against the law', only an act can.

In some contexts a person can be "against the law".
"There is legislation before the parliament which aims to legalise marijuana. I am against the law because I think many people would drive dangerously after smoking it."

By the way, you're only acting against the law if your blood alcohol is over a certain limit. Does any country have a zero legal limit? I guess Muslim countries do.

 

[Roman55]

Does any country have a zero legal limit? I guess Muslim countries do.

Interesting question. I thought Scandinavian countries had very low limits so I did a quick internet search. There are four European countries, listed here, where the limit is zero, and I was quite surprised to see which ones they are.

 

[jutfrank]

I don't think the labels 'zero' and 'first' are particularly relevant in some sentences.

1. If you drive after consuming alcohol, you are breaking the law. That's the situation here.
2. If you drive after consuming alcohol, you will be breaking the law.
3. If you drive after consuming alcohol when you are in on holiday in Prague next week, you will be breaking the law.

The first is fairly clearly a statement about a general truth It fits well into the 'zero condition' category, like 'If you heat ice, it melts'.
The third is clearly referring to a future possible situation, and fits well into the 'first condition' category, like 'If you put these ice cube in the warm oven, they will melt, and we will be able to have a drink of water.
The second is less clear. It could be referring to a possible future situation and, having the form of the traditional first conditional, can be so labelled. However, the 'will' could be merely an assertion of certainty, and the whole sentence could be a statement about a general truth, 'a zero condition'. This would be like 'If you heat ice, it will melt'.

I would refer to (1) as a factual conditional, (3) a predictive conditional, and (2) a factual or a predictive conditional, depending on the context.

Agreed. You don't need to convince me—I don't tend to use the labels 'zero','first', etc., at all if I can avoid it, but I had a feeling that it would be useful to do so in this case.