Can someone explain why the original sentence is wrong?

The original sentence is grammatically correct. So is the substitution. The only difference is that "not getting your money's worth" might be due to your own choices, whereas "not *being able to* get your money's worth" implies that you were ripped off

I think it is the difference between **"did not"** and **"were unable".** **Did not** = could have gotten full value but did not for whatever reason **were unable** = could not have gotten full value no matter what Being that the context is consumer relief, which is usually given due to bad circumstances, **"were** **unable"** maybe the better choice.

really clunky sentence. the most glaring problem with it is "goods and service." (it should be "goods and services") there's nothing incorrect about the underlined portion or the answer highlighted in green. based on the wording of the question, the most correct answer is "no substitution."

"in case" is the key thing here - It's a hypothetical situation that DID NOT occur. So "in case they did not get their money's worth" implies that they did not, a past completed action. The phrase "were unable to get their money's worth" is more correct because I believe it's the subjunctive, which is used when describing a hypothetical that did not take place. You don't say "If I was a millionaire, I would X" you say "If I were a millionaire, I would X" because you are not, in fact, a millionaire, nor did you being a millionaire take place in the past. (Unless you are a millionaire). I think it's a useless distinction in the question, however, as anybody could understand it to mean a hypothetical situation. It's a poor way to teach subjunctive in a language that barely uses it correctly. Any native speaker would understand the first option as well as the second option.

Indian thing? Those seem to have a lot of incorrect "lessons". Just something I've noticed on this sub.

Everyone else is saying the original is totally fine and no substitution is correct, I disagree. I think this is a tense issue. "Were unable to" belongs in a hypothetical and "in case" refers to something that might or might not happen, just like "were unable to" does, but "did not" refers to something that has definitely already happened. It's like the subjunctive. But I think this is a really small nitpicking type issue and that the original sentence is 87% fine. "Did not" reflects how I talk more accurately than "were unable to" does, I just feel that "were unable to" is technically more correct. 

Feels like this question was written by AI. There are real issues in the sentence that it's not addressing, all while being crazy pedantic about the chunk that its having you correct.

Personally I don't think "no substitution" is wrong, but to go to bat for that argument, let's use a simpler sentence. "We need dinner, but I did not go to the store, so I'll have to go to the store now instead." "We need dinner, but I was unable to go to the store, so we'll have to make something in the freezer." The first choice suggests that something could have been done, but was not done. The second choice suggests that there is nothing that could have been done besides to look for another way.

Were. (=was) Should be we're (we were)

there’s a difference as some other commenters are saying but it’s not a big enough difference to matter. if anyone corrected you in real life on this they would be insane i think

I think the real problem is with "in case". It's not used in situations like this. It's used when talking about taking action to **prevent or prepare for** something that might happen. So this is correct: Bring an umbrella in case it rains. But this isn't: Answer the phone in case it rings. The second one feels a bit odd because you don't answer in anticipation of a possible call. You answer when/if the phone rings. The text above feels awkward in the same way.

It’s not. And even if it is, it’s still not.

It's not wrong. The question appears to be asking you if any of the alternatives COULD be used to substitute it. The problem is that it says "if there's no need to substitute it choose no substitution" which yes, makes it confusing because it shouldn't say that.

You're right, either 1 or 2 would do equally well. But the sentence would still be poorly written either way. It's bad writing to stretch out the subject so far that I can go into the kitchen and get a snack before getting to the verb. Verbal phrase, I should say, because for some reason it's passive. The world is full of English curricula developed by people who can't speak or write English well. I feel bad for English learners who have to try to figure out the "correct" answers to misguided questions like this.

It’s a tricky one and the question is poorly written (I think ‘relief’ is the wrong word in this context, for example). But “were unable” has a slightly different meaning in terms of consumer rights to “did not get”. The latter being possibly subjective around the consumers view of value. The former is more about the consumer being prevented - they were unable to get the money’s worth, despite their own view. It shifts the blame to the retailer/provider, especially important with consumer rights. Consider ordering a wall poster from Amazon online: The poster arrives, you unroll it, put it on your wall and hate it. With regard to distance selling or retail regulations (especially in EU and UK) - You were UNABLE to get your moneys worth because you couldn’t see the poster full size in person before buying it. So you have a right to return it for a refund because this is your first opportunity to assess the product in person. This situation does not allow “did not get” money’s worth here, because that would imply you knew exactly what you were going to get.beforehand (which isn’t the case) and shifts the seeking of value onto the consumer. Perhaps the consumer wanted to take photos or selfies infront of the poster, but it turned out that nobody wanted to buy those photos. So they did not get the value they hoped for, but it wasn’t the retailers fault.

"Did not get" and "Were unable to get" have slightly different meanings. "Did not get" is just that. It didn't happen. "Were unable to get" means that there was something that prevented consumers from getting their money's worth. So, if I go out and willingly overpay for a load of bread then I did not get my money's worth of bread. However, if the only bread that I can find anywhere is too expensive then I was unable to get my money's worth of bread.

All the answers are wrong. It should be either "in case they do not get" or "in case they are unable to get." But also the whole sentence is wrong. It should be "the relief available to them if" and not "the relief open to them in case" Also it should just be "consumers," not "the consumers"

Is it normal for the last part to be without punctuation?

It's in the wrong tense 🤔

I don't think there's anything wrong with the original sentence actually.