More on Meaning: a GMATPrep Sentence Correction Problem
We’re going to continue on our Meaning streak because so many students have told me that they love this topic. This one, though, is not going to address modifiers (at least, not primarily). There are other ways to test meaning!
I’ve also been getting a lot of requests to show more example sentences of various constructions (as I did in an article a couple of weeks go). I’m going to do that going forward, but just note that we’re always going to use a test problem as the basis for discussion. I could write a million different sentences off of the top of my head – but my goal here is not to teach you how to become a master English writer. We care only about the specific constructions that the GMAT tests, so let’s use real problems to guide our studies. Otherwise, you’ll be studying English grammar and syntax for the next five years!
This problem is from GMATPrep®. Set your timer for 1 minute 15 seconds and go for it!
* 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”
What did you think of the original sentence?
My first reaction was: wait, what? Why does it say “had migrated?” That sounded not-quite-right to me. Of course, that portion of the sentence isn’t underlined, so it has to be right!
So I realized I have one of two things, here: either I need to fix some problem in the underlined portion or this is a hard problem and they just tricked me into thinking it “sounded funny” when there’s nothing wrong with it.
In general, when you think something sounds funny, go figure out what specific rule is being broken, or whether the meaning is illogical or ambiguous. If you can’t find anything, then maybe your ear just fooled you.
So, let’s examine this. Why was I surprised by the usage of “had migrated” in the non-underlined portion? What is that – what part of speech? How is it supposed to be used?
“Had migrated” is a verb tense construction. Specifically, it’s an example of the past perfect tense, which is a complex past tense construction. We use past perfect in one specific situation: when we have two (or more) actions taking place at different times in the past, and we want to indicate which one happened before the other.
We use past perfect to indicate the older, longer-ago action and either present perfect or a time marker to indicate the not-as-old action or timeframe. For example:
Before the age of 30, she had changed careers three times.
When she decided to go to graduate school, she had already changed careers three times.
In both sentences, the action that occurred first was the act of changing careers. First she changed careers three times, then she turned 30. First she changed careers three times, then she decided to go to graduate school. All of these actions are in the past, but some happened earlier than others in the past.
In the first sentence, we have a time marker to indicate the later timeframe or action: “before the age of 30.” In the second sentence, the later action is indicated by the simple past tense: “she decided.” Both of these constructions are acceptable to indicate the later of the two events or timeframes.
In both sentences, we see the same past perfect construction: “she had changed.” To construct the past perfect, we always begin with the word “had” and then we add the past participle of the verb we want to use. Regular past participles end with the letters “ed”: had changed, had worked, had played. There are also irregular past participles: had eaten, had gone, had seen.
Let’s go back to our original problem. The non-underlined portion contains “had migrated,” so the underlined portion must contain either a time marker or an action presented in the simple past tense. And here’s where our ear can be fooled.
Many people will naturally think of the action as the release of the honeybees. First, they were released; later, they migrated. That’s certainly true, and if the sentence had used the verb form of the word “release,” then answer A would be wrong. But the word “release” is in noun form in the sentence. We don’t have any verbs in the simple past tense at all. Instead, we have a time marker.
What is the time marker? “Less than 35 years after.” Did the migration of the honeybees occur before or after “less than 35 years after?”
Before! First, the bees were released. Then, they migrated north. Finally, it was “35 years after” the release, by which time the bees had already migrated. This is a similar construction to our “before the age of 30” time marker above. Let’s try another example.
Less than 10 years after her graduation from college, she had changed careers three times.
It still sounds a little funny doesn’t it? It’s the “less than” that’s key: the action that occurs after the comma (“she had changed”) occurs less than 10 years after her graduation. The changes occurred before that 10 years passed.
Okay. So the tense “problem” in the original sentence is not a problem at all. I don’t immediately see anything else wrong with the original, and I also have an idea of how they’re going to change some of the other answers (they’re going to want to try to set the trap for those of us who think the tense is wrong), so I decide at this point to go look at the other answers. I’m thinking specifically about how they might mess up the meaning of the sentence using verb tenses – since they almost got me to think that the meaning of the original sentence was wrong by using what seemed at first like the wrong tense.
Answer B doesn’t contain a regular tensed verb. Answer C does, though! It says the bees “had been released.” So, let’s see, the release happens first. That does make sense, because you have to release them before they can migrate. Then the migration happens after that, so we need to go change that tense to simple present… oh, wait, we can’t. It’s not underlined.
If I leave both “had been released” and “had migrated” in the past perfect tense, then the sentence is saying that these things both happened at the same time. That doesn’t make sense (illogical meaning!), so answer C is incorrect.
Bonus Question: what’s the difference between saying “had been released” and “had released?” (Answer at end.)
Answer D doesn’t contain a tensed verb, but answer E does. This answer says the bees “were released,” which is simple past. This would mean that the bees first migrated and then were released – again, messed-up meaning! Eliminate E.
We’ve narrowed the answers to A, B, and D. I noticed something about B when I was looking for tensed verbs. It says “since releasing honeybees…”
Less than 10 minutes after releasing a helium-filled balloon, the child could no longer see it in the sky.
The word “releasing” is indicating an action performed by someone or something. Someone or something is releasing (or was releasing) the balloon. That someone or something has to be placed after the comma (this is a standard noun-modifier construction). If I want to talk about the balloon after the comma, then I need to change the structure:
Less than 10 minutes after being released, the helium-filled balloon had floated out of sight.
The child is releasing the balloon, but the balloon is being released.
Okay, so that eliminates answer B, because it can’t be the case that the descendants of the African honeybees were the ones releasing their ancestors! We’re down to A and D.
Let’s look at D more closely. What’s the difference between answer D and these sentences:
It took less than 35 years for the lazy student to finish business school.
It took less than 35 years to mow the lawn.
“It took less than 35 years” is the same in all of the sentences, of course. What about the rest of the sentences?
The construction “it took less than <some amount of time>” needs to be followed by “for <something to occur>” or “to <do something>” at some point in the sentence. These are idioms. Logically, the “something to occur” in our problem is the migration of the bees. Answer D, though, uses “when” to introduce the part about the migration. Try that out in the simpler sentence construction:
It took less than 35 years, when the lazy student had finished business school.
I’m still waiting for them to tell me what took less than 35 years! It took less than 35 years, when the lazy student had finished business school, to find a job?
Whatever it is, the structure of D is incomplete because I don’t know what took less than 35 years to do or occur. The correct answer is A.
Answer to Bonus Question: “Had released” represents active voice and “had been released” represents passive voice. I had already released my little brother 10 minutes before my mom came home and yelled at me for teasing him. My little brother had already been released by me before…
We use active voice when the subject is performing the action: I ate the pizza. We use passive voice when the subject is having the action performed on it: The pizza was eaten by me.
Key Takeaways for Meaning and Verb Tenses
(1) Verb tenses often end up being about meaning in the end, because the usage of the incorrect verb tense usually makes the meaning illogical or incorrect. In this problem, answers C and E both had illogical meanings because the verb tenses were used incorrectly, and correct answer A was very tempting to eliminate because it sounded like the tense usage messed up the meaning (until we actually checked the details).
(2) When the original sentence either sounds funny / awkward or is outright difficult to understand in the first place, try to figure out why. Which part sounds awkward or is hard to understand? If you aren’t sure, leave answer choice A in. If you can spot the problem, cross off A and use that issue to launch your path through the problem.
(3) Modifiers and idioms are everywhere. Even though our main focus on this problem was verb tenses, we still used modifier and idiom rules to eliminate some answers. Study these areas intensively!
* GMATPrep® questions courtesy of the Graduate Management Admissions Council. Usage of this question does not imply endorsement by GMAC.


19 comments
Abhishek on February 5th, 2012 at 9:15 am
Hi Stacy,
I am still not clear with the explanation for option "B". Can you please elaborate it more.
Stacey Koprince on February 6th, 2012 at 8:18 am
Thanks, Micky (see below). Micky explained exactly why. Option B uses past perfect with the later action, but past perfect has to be used with the earlier of the two actions.
Stacey Koprince on February 8th, 2012 at 7:21 am
Whoops, sorry about that. I didn't actually go up and read options B and C. Micky's explanation is correct, yes, but it's correct for option C.
In B, we use the present participle "releasing" in the opening modifier. When you have an -ing modifier seperated from the main clause by a comma, then whoever or whatever is doing that action should be the subject of the main clause.
Stumbling over the stone, I fell on the hard pavement and damaged my wrist.
Stumbling over the stone, the hard pavement caused me to damage my wrist.
The first sentence is fine. The second is not, because the hard pavement was not the thing stumbling over the stone - that was me! Same thing in B. Whoever's releasing the balloon isn't there in the sentence - instead, the subject of the main clause is the descendants of the bees... and bees didn't release other bees into the wild.
micky on February 6th, 2012 at 1:41 am
@abhishek As explained past perfect tense is used for the earlier action.in the underlined part of option B "had been released" is used which means that release happened before migration.As a result the non underlined part should contain the later action i.e migrate should be in present tense. we cannot modify the the non underlined part so option B is wrong
Abhishek on February 6th, 2012 at 8:20 am
Hi Micky,
I thinks the explanation you have given is for option "C" since "had been released" is used in option "C" not in "B". Can you help me to understand option "B"
Stacey Koprince on February 8th, 2012 at 7:21 am
take a look above - I responded up there.
Abhishek on February 9th, 2012 at 8:34 am
Thanks a lot Stacy, now I am clear with option "B"
winniethepooh on February 7th, 2012 at 11:57 pm
HI Stacy, I agree with you on '' (3) Modifiers and idioms are everywhere. Even though our main focus on this problem was verb tenses, we still used modifier and idiom rules to eliminate some answers. Study these areas intensively! ''
But, I have a difficulty here. I don't understand what you mean by '' idioms used in American English"(Not so important to study) and "idioms used commonly in English"(very important to study). [This, I read in some previous articles you wrote]
Do you have any way I can get a clearer distinction between these two ?
Stacey Koprince on February 8th, 2012 at 7:16 am
To some extent, I can give you a more clear distinction but the test writers haven't published a definitive list of what they consider "too American" for the GMAT.
Some examples:
"Skim" milk (milk with the fat skimmed out) is an American english term. Other forms of English use other terms. In American english, collective nouns are singular (the team is good) but they're plural in British english (the team are good).
On the other hand, the idiom "between X and Y" is the same in all forms of English, as are "from X to Y" and "either X or Y." I am capable OF something and I have the capability TO DO something. Those are universal as well.
As a general rule, assume that any idioms you see in official problems is "fair game" for the test. They haven't officially said that this is true - so my guess is that there might be a few in there that slipped through the editors (the current books were published a couple of years ago). But, for the most part, I expect that idioms in OG12 and the supplement books are ones we should know. (And same for GMATPrep.)
winniethepooh on February 10th, 2012 at 5:41 am
Thanks Stacy, I will try to do this at least!
How important is the list included in the Manhattan SC guide ed 4.1?
Stacey Koprince on February 10th, 2012 at 7:29 am
The idioms listed in our idioms chapter are 100% from official guide problems - so, important.
In general, there are thousands of idioms in the language, so we're not going to memorize them all. Focus on the ones that we know have actually been tested by the testwriters in the past. They can also choose to use new ones, but we just have to do what we can do without studying for the rest of our lives!
Siying on February 8th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Hi Stacey,
The correct sentence uses the an action noun "the release of honeybees" to describe the earliest action, but if I want to use a verb instead of action noun, which tense shall I use? If I say:
Less than 35 years after honeybees WERE RELEASED, their descendants HAD MIGRATED.
Is this sentence correct?
I ask this question because I see a sample sentence in the MGMAT SC Guide, "The band U2 WAS just one of many new groups on the rock music scene in early 1980's, but less than ten years later, U2 HAD fully ECLIPSED its early rivals in the pantheon of popular music." Sounds similar to our sentence here, but I feel a little weird to use the simple past to describe the earliest action while the past perfect to describe the 2nd earliest action....Need some clarification here whether the sentence I made up above is correct.
Another question, could you please comment on the structure "In x years since ...." in B & C. Is this structure correct in and of itself? (I'm wondering why the correct choice A does not have "In" at the beginning....)
Are my following sentences correct?
1. In less than 35 years since the release of honeybees, their descendants had migrated.
2. In less than 35 years since honeybees WERE RELEASED, their descendants had migrated.
btw: I notice in some correct sentences that if "since" is used as a time indicator (I mean, not as "because"), it is always followed by either an action noun (including a time marker) or an action in SIMPLE PAST TENSE. Am I correct?
Thank you Stacey. Your articles are very helpful - as always!
Stacey Koprince on February 8th, 2012 at 7:46 pm
Good questions. Hmm. For the U2 sentence, it is similar in some ways, but also notice this:
,
I put brackets around the different parts. We have an independen clause (a complete sentence) before the "comma, but" and then the "comma but" says "restart! I'm about to give you a whole new sentence." Chop it just to the second independent clause. Now, we've got our time marker (less than 10 years later) and the earlier action (had fully eclipsed). Those two against each other are fine.
Also notice that in the first independent clause, we've got a time marker (in the early 1980s) but the verb goes *along* with that timeframe. During that timeframe, they were new. They weren't new before (or after) that timeframe.
Now, let's see - in your newly made up sentence about the honeybees. First, we have only one complete sentence here. We've got a dependent clause followed by an independent. Next, and this is problematic, we've got the time marker first, then one verb, then the second verb which is supposed to match with the time marker that came all the way at the beginning. Further, the "were released" action takes place before the time marker right next to it (where in the U2 sentence, the time marker was different and did actually go along with that verb).
So that's ambiguous, at the least, and I don't think the GMAT would put that in a correct sentence. In general, it would be best to do what they actually did - which is not to introduce potential confusion by using two verbs and a time marker for three different timeframes all in the same clause.
That's not to say that you can't have three actions:
After I had eaten and she had showered, we went to the movies.
Three events. The first two take place before the third, so we use past perfect for both. Did I eat and did she shower at the same time? I don't know. But we both did those actions before we went to the movies.
What's the difference between these two sentences?
By 8p, she had finished showering, and then we left for the movies.
She showered earlier; by 8p, we had left for the movies.
When did we leave for the movies in each sentence?
In the first, we left sometime at or after 8p. In the second, we left before 8p. Notice that I just say "earlier" for "showered." Earlier is a time marker. It's also in its own clause. Then, "had left" goes with the time marker 8p - we had already left by the time it was 8p.
For the "in" part, You could say:
In less than 35 years, the honeybees had managed to migrate all the way to Texas.
Or you could say:
In less than a month, I managed to earn my black belt, climb Mount Everest, and fly to the moon. (And now I'm going to take a nap.)
But B and C above make it too complicated and therefore introduce other problems / errors.
Finally, for "since," on SC they usually stick to using "since" as a time indicator. They don't like to mix it up with "because" (although I have seen them use the word that way on CR and RC questions). So, on SC, you should usually expect "since" to be used as a time indicator, and then if it is, yes, there needs to be some appropriate indication that will go along with it. I'm not sure whether you're absolutely limited to simple past or an action noun - I'll need to think about that, but I can't come up with any counter-examples off the top of my head.
Since I started running every day, I've lost 5 pounds.
In the 10 years since she lost her cat, she has been very depressed.
Since learning that her husband would be laid off, she has been looking for work every day.
Well, in general, let's just say that "since" should generally be used as a time marker on SC, and then you do need to make sure that whatever construction follows actually does make sense with that (since implies past, from that past time to now).
Siying on February 8th, 2012 at 9:24 pm
Thank you sooooo much Stacey! I'm crystal clear now
WinnieThePooh on February 28th, 2012 at 7:34 am
STacey,
Could you please elaborate on the difference between :
1. In less than 35 years since the release of honeybees, their descendants had migrated.
2. In less than 35 years since honeybees WERE RELEASED, their descendants had migrated.
What's wrong tense-wise? I couldn't understand your response. Appreciate your help.
Stacey Koprince on February 28th, 2012 at 7:53 am
Sure!
In less than 35 years since honeybees WERE RELEASED, their descendants had migrated.
In this sentence, we have 2 verbs and a time marker. The verbs are "were released" and "had migrated" and the time marker is "less than 35 years."
What is the sequence of events? (1) release (2) migration (3) 35-year mark
The sentence uses simple past (were released) for action 1 and past perfect (had migrated) for action 2. "Had migrated" is used in conjunction with something else (a verb or a time marker) that happened after. So that seems to be okay, right? Because after they migrated, we come to the 35-year mark.
The problem, though, is that the 35-year mark is before action 1. It should be attached to action 2. This is what I'd call ambiguous, not outright wrong. We know what they're trying to say, but they've put the time marker in an ambiguous position, attached to action 1 instead of action 2.
Contrast that with the U2 sentence (which didn't paste properly before because I put brackets around it which the blog software interpreted as html code!):
"The band U2 WAS just one of many new groups on the rock music scene in early 1980's, but less than ten years later, U2 HAD fully ECLIPSED its early rivals in the pantheon of popular music."
We have two verbs (was and had eclipsed) and a time marker (less than 10 years later), but notice how the order has changed. Notice now that the time marker is definitely associated with the "had eclipsed" verb. U2 had eclipsed its rivals by the 10-year mark. (1) eclipse (2) 10-year mark.
If we switched around the honeybee sentence to mimic this, we might have something like:
The honeybees were released outside SP Brazil, and less than 35 years later, they had migrated all the way to Texas.
The conjunction "and" indicates a new clause - essentially a new part of the sentence. Now I've divided up the actions. In the first half, they were released. In the second half, they first migrated and then we hit the 35-year mark. Because that second half has two actions that took place at different times in the past, we can use past perfect for the longer-ago action (had migrated).
WinnieThePooh on February 28th, 2012 at 8:58 am
Thank you Stacey! It makes sense now. Do you think that there is a meaning issue with "In less than 35 years..., bees had migrated" ?
Essentially, "In less than 35 years..." acts like a prepositional modifier. Hence, it modifies "had migrated". However, we don't know any other past event -- migrated after which "past tense". I think that it is somewhat referring to what you have just explained - we need a time marker attached to the past perfect.
Any thoughts?
Stacey Koprince on February 28th, 2012 at 9:47 am
Yes, exactly - the placement of the time marker (which is a modifier) creates ambiguity / messes up the meaning. We know *logically* that the "35 year" part is what should be used to justify past perfect (had migrated), but the closest other event is "were released" and that event happens before the migration, not after.
So placing the "35 year" part before were released makes it seem like that's modifying the release action and not the migration action - and therefore there's no "later action" given to justify the use of "HAD migrated."
Gaurav on April 11th, 2012 at 1:32 am
tough one but got it!