Sentence Correction

ngk4mba3236 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:Let's say that January 1, 1900 = the release of the bees.

C: 35 years since African honeybees HAD BEEN RELEASED
Since January 1, 1900 = the release of the bees, on January 1, 1950, the bees HAD already BEEN RELEASED.
Thus, 35 years since African Honeybees HAD BEEN RELEASED could imply January 1, 1950 + 35 years = January 1, 1985.
Not the intended meaning.
Eliminate C.

while I can understand your above explanation, got a few concerns on this -

1. isn't the sentence structure of option C itself awkward ?

"Awkwardness" is an insufficient reason to eliminate an answer choice.
What one reader considers awkward, another reader may not.
Try to identity a clear error of grammar or meaning.

2. when "since" is used to denote a time frame, doesn't the perfect tense come into play by default ? I mean, isn't this construction -- since + past/present perfect + time -- correct, generally ?

When since serves to express not causality but the passage of TIME, it must refer to a DEFINITE MOMENT in the past:
since February
since 1975
since the start of the space age

The present present and past perfect tenses serve to express actions that take place at INDEFINITE MOMENTS in the past.
For this reason, since + PERFECT TENSE cannot serve to express the passage of time.

Generally, when since serves to express the passage of time, the present perfect is required not in the since-modifier but in the MAIN CLAUSE:
Since 1990, the global economy HAS GROWN.

3. if we have "35 years since African Honeybees WAS RELEASED", then will it imply the following ?
January 1, 1900 + 35 years = January 1, 1935

This line of reasoning is valid.
Please note that the verb should be were released, since the subject -- honeybees -- is plural.

GMATGuruNY wrote:The present present and past perfect tenses serve to express actions that take place at INDEFINITE MOMENTS in the past.
For this reason, since + PERFECT TENSE cannot serve to express the passage of time.

gmatguru,
thanks for your clarifications. that was helpful.

however, a doubt remains on the above quote!
if the above quote is true then option C appears to be grammatically incorrect "less than the 35 years since African honeybees had been released". so, why we'll even analyse this option further ?

thoughts ?

ngk4mba3236 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:The present present and past perfect tenses serve to express actions that take place at INDEFINITE MOMENTS in the past.
For this reason, since + PERFECT TENSE cannot serve to express the passage of time.

gmatguru,
thanks for your clarifications. that was helpful.

however, a doubt remains on the above quote!
if the above quote is true then option C appears to be grammatically incorrect "less than the 35 years since African honeybees had been released". so, why we'll even analyse this option further ?

thoughts ?

Yes, C can be eliminated simply because since + PERFECT TENSE cannot serve to express the passage of time.
No further analysis is needed.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

simone88 wrote:Less than 35 years after the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, their descendants, popularly known as killer bees, had migrated as far north as southern Texas.

(A) Less than 35 years after the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil,
(B) In less than 35 years since releasing African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil,
(C) In less than the 35 years since African honeybees had been released outside Sao Paulo, Brazil,
(D) It took less than 35 years from the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, when
(E) It took less than the 35 years after the time that African honeybees were released outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, and then

In the OA (answer choice A), there is no pronoun error or ambiguity: the only logical antecedent for their (plural) is African honeybees (the nearest preceding plural noun).
It is not necessary that the referent for their be the subject of the preceding clause.

Dear GMATGuru,

1- I can eliminate B & C because when the the time interval is modified, by a preposition or a clause, we do NOT need a preposition.

Is it correct?

2-In choice E, amid its falseness, is the usage of 'time that' idiomatic? I feel it should be 'when' as we talk about time line?

3- Why do not we use ' fewer than 3 years'? Is not 'years' countable word?

Thanks

Mo2men wrote: Dear GMATGuru,

1- I can eliminate B & C because when the the time interval is modified, by a preposition or a clause, we do NOT need a preposition.

Is it correct?

This line of reasoning is viable.
In the SC above, no preposition is needed before less than 35 years.

2-In choice E, amid its falseness, is the usage of 'time that' idiomatic? I feel it should be 'when' as we talk about time line?

E: the time that African honeybees were released
Here, that serves to refer to the time.
Conveyed meaning:
African honeybees were released the time.
This meaning is nonsensical.
Eliminate E.

As you have noted, time when is a correct idiom.
SC199 in the Verbal Review 2017:
at a time WHEN supplies are tight

3- Why do not we use ' fewer than 3 years'? Is not 'years' countable word?

Thanks

I discuss this issue in my two posts here:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/india-s-rice ... 91214.html

GMATGuruNY wrote:

Mo2men wrote:
3- Why do not we use ' fewer than 3 years'? Is not 'years' countable word?

Thanks

I discuss this issue in my two posts here:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/india-s-rice ... 91214.html

GMATGuruNY wrote: Generally:
less serves to refer to any noun that takes a SINGULAR VERB.
fewer serves to refer to any noun that takes a PLURAL VERB.

Normally, expressions of money, weight, time and distance take a SINGULAR VERB.
Five dollars IS a good price.
41 million tons IS equal to 82,000,000,000 pounds.
Twenty minutes IS the amount of time allotted for the first section of the test.
One hundred miles IS not a great distance.

Since 41 million tons takes a singular verb, the correct modifier is not fewer but LESS.

Dear Mitch,

I understand from your posts that i can re-write in terms of money, weight, time and distance as follows:

Less than Five dollars = Less money than Five dollars.
Less than 41 million tons = Less weight than 41 million tons.
Less than Twenty minutes = Less time than Twenty minutes.
Less than One hundred miles = Less distance than One hundred miles.

Is my analysis correct?

Thanks

Mo2men wrote:I understand from your posts that i can re-write in terms of money, weight, time and distance as follows:

Less than Five dollars = Less money than Five dollars.
Less than 41 million tons = Less weight than 41 million tons.
Less than Twenty minutes = Less time than Twenty minutes.
Less than One hundred miles = Less distance than One hundred miles.

Is my analysis correct?

Thanks

The underlined words are redundant.
Incorrect: In her wallet, Mary has less money than five dollars.
Correct: In her wallet, Mary has less than five dollars.
The second sentence conveys the complete meaning.
The word in red adds no meaning and thus is unwarranted.

GMATGuruNY wrote:Generally, when since serves to express the passage of time, the present perfect is required not in the since-modifier but in the MAIN CLAUSE:
Since 1990, the global economy HAS GROWN.

hi gmatguru,
when we've the above aspect in any SC, then can the part described here as the "MAIN CLAUSE containing the present perfect" be a modifier (such as verb-ing, verb-ed etc.) instead of a CLAUSE ?

i mean, can the following two structures be correct in GMAT SC ?

"Since 1990, the global economy GROWNing steadily..." -- Verb-ing is used here.

"Since X happened, the global economy GROWN 50%..." -- Verb-ed is used here.

curious to know your thoughts!

ngk4mba3236 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:Generally, when since serves to express the passage of time, the present perfect is required not in the since-modifier but in the MAIN CLAUSE:
Since 1990, the global economy HAS GROWN.

hi gmatguru,
when we've the above aspect in any SC, then can the part described here as the "MAIN CLAUSE containing the present perfect" be a modifier (such as verb-ing, verb-ed etc.) instead of a CLAUSE ?

i mean, can the following two structures be correct in GMAT SC ?

"Since 1990, the global economy GROWNing steadily..." -- Verb-ing is used here.

"Since X happened, the global economy GROWN 50%..." -- Verb-ed is used here.

curious to know your thoughts!

Neither of the options in blue is valid.
The main clause requires a present perfect VERB.
Neither of the options in blue includes a present perfect verb.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

ngk4mba3236 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:Let's say that January 1, 1900 = the release of the bees.

C: 35 years since African honeybees HAD BEEN RELEASED
Since January 1, 1900 = the release of the bees, on January 1, 1950, the bees HAD already BEEN RELEASED.
Thus, 35 years since African Honeybees HAD BEEN RELEASED could imply January 1, 1950 + 35 years = January 1, 1985.
Not the intended meaning.
Eliminate C.

while I can understand your above explanation, got a few concerns on this -

1. isn't the sentence structure of option C itself awkward ?

"Awkwardness" is an insufficient reason to eliminate an answer choice.
What one reader considers awkward, another reader may not.
Try to identity a clear error of grammar or meaning.

2. when "since" is used to denote a time frame, doesn't the perfect tense come into play by default ? I mean, isn't this construction -- since + past/present perfect + time -- correct, generally ?

When since serves to express not causality but the passage of TIME, it must refer to a DEFINITE MOMENT in the past:
since February
since 1975
since the start of the space age

The present present and past perfect tenses serve to express actions that take place at INDEFINITE MOMENTS in the past.
For this reason, since + PERFECT TENSE cannot serve to express the passage of time.

Generally, when since serves to express the passage of time, the present perfect is required not in the since-modifier but in the MAIN CLAUSE:
Since 1990, the global economy HAS GROWN.

3. if we have "35 years since African Honeybees WAS RELEASED", then will it imply the following ?
January 1, 1900 + 35 years = January 1, 1935

This line of reasoning is valid.
Please note that the verb should be were released, since the subject -- honeybees -- is plural.

"Less than 35 years" vs "in less than 35 years"
Is it a valid slpit? Tell me the difference between these two.

GMATGuruNY

thank you Hunt. it is wonderful for us to have you here.
I want to add something.
normally , had done goes with "by". this is text book case for the use of had done.

by yesterday, i had finished the test.

but in OA, we can not have "by". we can not say
"by 35 year after release".
however, OA show us a point of time in the past, which is needed for had done to work.
so, we do not allway need "by" , we just need a point of time
when he came yesterday, I have finished the test.
this is also an example showing that had done can go with a point of time.

only OA offer a point of time for "had done " to work. in B and C, "in" dose not present a point of time, and "had done " can not work with "in".