In the following sentence, some part may contain an error. Identify the part that has an error, if any: “The Manager warned his team members (1) that if they persist in their (2) obstructionist attitude they would be punished. (3) No error (4)”

Introduction / Context:
This is an error spotting question focusing on the correct sequence of tenses in a conditional clause within reported speech. The sentence states that a manager warned his team about possible punishment if they continued behaving in an obstructionist way. We must check whether the tense forms in the “if” clause and the “would” clause are consistent with the past reporting verb “warned”.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Complete sentence: “The Manager warned his team members (1) that if they persist in their (2) obstructionist attitude they would be punished. (3) No error (4)”
• Part 1: “The Manager warned his team members”
• Part 2: “that if they persist in their”
• Part 3: “obstructionist attitude they would be punished.”
• Reporting verb “warned” is in the past tense.

Concept / Approach:
In reported speech involving conditional sentences, when the reporting verb is in the past, the usual sequence is “if” + past tense, followed by “would” + base verb. For example, “He warned that if they came late, they would be punished.” Here, “persist” appears in the present tense while the main clause uses “would be punished”. To maintain standard sequence of tenses, “persist” should be in the past form “persisted”. Therefore, part 2 contains the error and should read “that if they persisted in their”.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
We can reconstruct the likely direct speech: “The Manager said to his team members, ‘If you persist in your obstructionist attitude, you will be punished.’” On converting this to indirect speech, “said” becomes “warned”, “you persist” becomes “they persisted”, and “you will be punished” becomes “they would be punished.” This produces the sentence “The Manager warned his team members that if they persisted in their obstructionist attitude they would be punished.” The only change needed from the given sentence is in part 2, where “persist” should be “persisted”. Parts 1 and 3 are structurally fine.

Why Other Options Are Not Marked as Errors:

• Option A (part 1): “The Manager warned his team members” is correct. It clearly shows who gave the warning and to whom.
• Option C (part 3): “obstructionist attitude they would be punished” is correct when joined to the corrected “if” clause. The use of “would be punished” suits reported speech after a past reporting verb.
• Option D (part 4): “No error” is incorrect because we have clearly identified a tense inconsistency in part 2.

Common Pitfalls:
Many learners rely on modern conversational English, where sequence of tenses is more flexible, and might accept “if they persist, they would be punished” as acceptable. In formal examination grammar, however, the pattern “if + present, will” is used in direct speech, and when back shifted after a past reporting verb, it becomes “if + past, would”. Ignoring this rule leads to marks lost in error spotting questions. A helpful technique is to try reconstructing the likely direct speech form in your mind, then carefully applying tense changes to reach the indirect version.

Final Answer:
The error is in part 2; it should be “if they persisted in their obstructionist attitude they would be punished.”