Sentence Correction

Although the fear last year that the trade zone might break apart had receded, the risk now could be prolonged stagnation of the kind that has plagued Argentina for the past two decades.

had receded, the risk now could be prolonged stagnation of the kind that has plagued Argentina for the past two decades

had receded, the risk now could be prolonged stagnation as it has plagued Argentina for the past two decades

receded, the risk now could be prolonged stagnation, just as it has plagued Argentina for the past two decades

has receded, the risk now could be prolonged stagnation, like it has plagued Argentina for the past two decades

has receded, the risk now could be prolonged stagnation, like that which has plagued Argentina for the past two decades

IMO E

Understanding the meaning in such sentences is important.
It should be "E".

Although the fear last year that the trade zone might break apart had receded, the risk now could be prolonged stagnation of the kind that has plagued Argentina for the past two decades.

(A) had receded, the risk now could be prolonged stagnation of the kind that has plagued Argentina for the past two decades

The use of the past perfect form, had receded, in this version does not make sense. The past perfect is generally used to indicate that one past event occurred before another past event. In this sentence only one past event is mentioned.

(B) had receded, the risk now could be prolonged stagnation as it has plagued Argentina for the past two decades

As in choice A, the use of the past perfect form, had receded, does not make sense.

In addition the construction, as it has plagued Argentina, conveys that the stagnation is a risk because the stagnation has plagued Argentina, distorting the meaning, assuming that it even refers to stagnation, which reference is not clearly the case.

(C) receded, the risk now could be prolonged stagnation, just as it has plagued Argentina for the past two decades

While the simple past receded is not preferred in this instance, as the present perfect is preferred for talking about an event in the past that has a result in the present, receded is ok.

However, this answer choice does not work as just as it is unnecessarily wordy and compares prolonged stagnation to plagued Argentina. There is no mention of something being plagued in the first part of the clause. So saying just as it plagued Argentina does not make sense.

(D) has receded, the risk now could be prolonged stagnation, like it has plagued Argentina for the past two decades

The present perfect has receded is in the optimal tense.

However, there is an issue similar that found in choice C in that like it had plagued Argentina is compared to nothing else that plagued anything.

(E) has receded, the risk now could be prolonged stagnation, like that which has plagued Argentina for the past two decades

In this version the present perfect has receded is the best form for expressing that the fear remains at the level to which it has receded.

Also, like that which has plagued Argentina correctly modifies stagnation, indicating that it would be like the stagnation which has plagued Argentina.

So the correct answer is E.

Here's another example of the use of the present perfect to describe an event has results in the present.

Simple Past: Jim went to the store. - conveys the simple meaning that at some point Jim went to the store

Present Perfect: Jim has gone to the store. - could be used to convey that Jim is not here presently and is in the process of going to the store - He is not here, as he has gone to the store.

Marty Murray wrote:Although the fear last year that the trade zone might break apart had receded, the risk now could be prolonged stagnation of the kind that has plagued Argentina for the past two decades.

(A) had receded, the risk now could be prolonged stagnation of the kind that has plagued Argentina for the past two decades

The use of the past perfect form, had receded, in this version does not make sense. The past perfect is generally used to indicate that one past event occurred before another past event. In this sentence only one past event is mentioned.

(B) had receded, the risk now could be prolonged stagnation as it has plagued Argentina for the past two decades

As in choice A, the use of the past perfect form, had receded, does not make sense.

In addition the construction, as it has plagued Argentina, conveys that the stagnation is a risk because the stagnation has plagued Argentina, distorting the meaning, assuming that it even refers to stagnation, which reference is not clearly the case.

(C) receded, the risk now could be prolonged stagnation, just as it has plagued Argentina for the past two decades

While the simple past receded is not preferred in this instance, as the present perfect is preferred for talking about an event in the past that has a result in the present, receded is ok.

However, this answer choice does not work as just as it is unnecessarily wordy and compares prolonged stagnation to plagued Argentina. There is no mention of something being plagued in the first part of the clause. So saying just as it plagued Argentina does not make sense.

(D) has receded, the risk now could be prolonged stagnation, like it has plagued Argentina for the past two decades

The present perfect has receded is in the optimal tense.

However, there is an issue similar that found in choice C in that like it had plagued Argentina is compared to nothing else that plagued anything.

(E) has receded, the risk now could be prolonged stagnation, like that which has plagued Argentina for the past two decades

In this version the present perfect has receded is the best form for expressing that the fear remains at the level to which it has receded.

Also, like that which has plagued Argentina correctly modifies stagnation, indicating that it would be like the stagnation which has plagued Argentina.

So the correct answer is E.

Here's another example of the use of the present perfect to describe an event has results in the present.

Simple Past: Jim went to the store. - conveys the simple meaning that at some point Jim went to the store

Present Perfect: Jim has gone to the store. - could be used to convey that Jim is not here presently and is in the process of going to the store - He is not here, as he has gone to the store.

I'm confused. Especially regarding the antecedent of it/that in every choice.
Can you please explain?

Mechmeera wrote:I'm confused. Especially regarding the antecedent of it/that in every choice.
Can you please explain?

had receded, the risk now could be prolonged stagnation of the kind that has plagued Argentina for the past two decades

(A) had receded, the risk now could be prolonged stagnation of the kind that has plagued Argentina for the past two decades

that is used as a relative pronoun referring to kind.

(B) had receded, the risk now could be prolonged stagnation as it has plagued Argentina for the past two decades

Depending how you read this, it could refer to nothing, or to stagnation.

Here is one interpretation.

the risk now could be prolonged stagnation as (similar to because) prolonged stagnation has plagued Argentina

However, I guess the function of as in this version is to create an idiomatically incorrect structure that misuses as where like would make more sense. Basically this version of the sentence is pretty flawed.

(C) receded, the risk now could be prolonged stagnation, just as it has plagued Argentina for the past two decades

What it refers to is not clear, as before it there is no discussion of anything plaguing anything. it refers to something that has plagued something, but before it there is no discussion of anything plaguing anything.

(D) has receded, the risk now could be prolonged stagnation, like it has plagued Argentina for the past two decades

Maybe it refers to stagnation, but there is no discussion of stagnation plaguing anything, so really the it in like it has plagued Argentina does not logically refer to anything.

(E) has receded, the risk now could be prolonged stagnation, like that which has plagued Argentina for the past two decades

Ideally that should have a clear antecedent, and it does not. So in a sense we don't know what that refers to. However, the meaning is fairly clear. the risk now could be prolonged stagnation, like the stagnation that has plagued Argentina.

I am not 100% sure whether that use of that is considered "correct", but it does work.

Meanwhile, notice that the restrictive modifier, which has plagued Argentina, starts with which. In constructions using that which, it is idiomatically correct to start the restrictive modifier with which.