It's no use phoning Bob at the office, he A) will be leaving.

[svetlana14]

Please have a look at the exercise below.

It's no use phoning Bob at the office, he

A) will be leaving.
B) is leaving.
C) will have left.

This exercise is taken from Advance Language Practice by M. Vince (2004).

The correct answer is C) but for me it's tricky/ambigious as one could treat the context a little bit differently than the author is trying to put it. For instance, a secretary is instructing the employee that he shouldn't call/bother the boss (Bob) as he's leaving (very busy, not in the office, etc.) In other words, don't think as native speakers that the context is NOT clear enough for the answer to be just C)? Thank you.

 

[emsr2d2]

They're all possible. However, A and B mean that he would be in the process of leaving just at the time you call and probably wouldn't want to take a phone call at that time. C means that he definitely won't be in the building anymore when you call. A would be used by someone who knows his schedule but probably isn't at his office. B would be used by someone in the same office who can probably see him putting his coat on and heading for the door.

Did the original really use a comma after "at the office"? It should be a semi-colon (or a full stop).

 

[Glizdka]

I've had a look at the book you've been using. I can see a lot of comma splices, ambiguous exercises where more than one answer is possible, and awkward wording I wouldn't expect from a native speaker. I'd consider ditching the book if I were you.

 

[svetlana14]

a comma is used. But it would much easier to read a book on philosophy rather than carrying so much analytics as the author (M. Vince) "compels" someone to do. I mean that even the book is published by Macmillan Heinemann the exercises are limited just to one correct answer while actually (in real life) providing more that one or (even two) possible options even for you, as a native speaker...

 

[emsr2d2]

A comma is used. [STRIKE]But[/STRIKE] It would much easier to read a book on philosophy [STRIKE]rather[/STRIKE] than carrying so much analytics as the author (M. Vince) "compels" someone to do. I mean that even though the book is published by Macmillan Heinemann, the exercises are limited [STRIKE]just[/STRIKE] to just one correct answer while actually (in real life) providing [STRIKE]more that[/STRIKE] another one or (even two) possible options [STRIKE]even for you, as a[/STRIKE] according to native speakers.

Note my corrections above. I don't know what you mean by the blue, underlined part.

I agree with Glizdka that this book belongs in the bin. It's a waste of your valuable time. Find a better one.

 

[Glizdka]

I mean that even the book is published by Macmillan Heinemann the exercises are limited just to one correct answer (...)

I'm not a fan of McMillan. This publisher cuts corners so much that many of their books should be round. I'm a sucker for Cambridge University Press. Their books rarely disappoint.

 

[jutfrank]

I think you're all being a bit too harsh on Michael Vince.

The point of these exercises is that you put the answer that makes most sense given the context. You're not supposed to try and treat the context differently.

I can't imagine any native speaker not put C as the most sensible answer.

 

[Tdol]

but for me it's tricky/ambigious

You could stop Bob in cases A) & B), but not in C). If it is no use, then there should be no possibility of stopping him. I'm with Mr Vince on this one.