BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

"comma + that " & "no comma + which"

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:53 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:2 members

"comma + that " & "no comma + which"

by mmslf75 » Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:09 pm
Municipal governments are beginning to confront the growing pension liabilities; this leads local politicians throughout the country to become increasingly vocal about restraining costs and limiting services.

the growing pension liabilities; this leads
their growing pension liabilities; leading

the growth in their pension liabilities, which leads

their growing pension liabilities, leading

their growing pension liabilities, that leads
OA D

Query :

version 1 their growing pension liabilities, that leads
version 2 their growing pension liabilities, which lead
version 3 their growing pension liabilities that leads
version 4 their growing pension liabilities which leads ..

Are all the 4 versions correct in some way?
Can any1 please help me understand as to how one must decide between "WHICH" and "THAT" with / without comma ?
Are "comma + that " & "no comma + which" valid on GMAT ??

Please help
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 434
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Bangalore
Thanked: 6 times
GMAT Score:600

by viju9162 » Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:21 am
I don't think comma + that is valid ( at least not on GMAT). Maybe, experts can comment on this..

However, in this particular sentence, E is ruled out because of its improper structure ( comma + that) .. That will refer to its immediate previous noun and go deeper into the subject.

A can be ruled out as "this" is not referring to any subject. C has ( comma + which)..but it becomes unclear whether it is describing about liabilities... From the sentence we can make out that author is further explaining about the "confront" and not the liabilities.

B is ruled out because the second part is expected to be an independent sentence..
"Native of" is used for a individual while "Native to" is used for a large group
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:25 am
mmslf75 wrote:Query :

version 1 their growing pension liabilities, that leads
version 2 their growing pension liabilities, which lead
version 3 their growing pension liabilities that leads
version 4 their growing pension liabilities which leads ..

Are all the 4 versions correct in some way?
Can any1 please help me understand as to how one must decide between "WHICH" and "THAT" with / without comma ?
Are "comma + that " & "no comma + which" valid on GMAT ??

Please help
as far as we've seen on the gmat, you cannot ever have "which" without a comma immediately beforehand.

"that" is NOT supposed to be preceded by a comma, but it could be - IF the comma belongs to another modifier that intervenes before "that".
for instance:
i'm looking for a TV that costs less than $200.
you can write
i'm looking for a TV, with a remote, that costs less than $200.
here it appears that there's a "comma + that", but this is mostly an illusion: the comma before "that" isn't actually part of the main structure at all. it's used only to block off the modifier.

--

also, #1 and #3 are automatically wrong, because they contain a singular verb ("leads"). there's no singular noun, at all, to serve as the subject in either of those sentences.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:53 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:2 members

by mmslf75 » Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:47 am
lunarpower wrote:
mmslf75 wrote:Query :

version 1 their growing pension liabilities, that leads
version 2 their growing pension liabilities, which lead
version 3 their growing pension liabilities that leads
version 4 their growing pension liabilities which leads ..

Are all the 4 versions correct in some way?
Can any1 please help me understand as to how one must decide between "WHICH" and "THAT" with / without comma ?
Are "comma + that " & "no comma + which" valid on GMAT ??

Please help
as far as we've seen on the gmat, you cannot ever have "which" without a comma immediately beforehand.

"that" is NOT supposed to be preceded by a comma, but it could be - IF the comma belongs to another modifier that intervenes before "that".
for instance:
i'm looking for a TV that costs less than $200.
you can write
i'm looking for a TV, with a remote, that costs less than $200.
here it appears that there's a "comma + that", but this is mostly an illusion: the comma before "that" isn't actually part of the main structure at all. it's used only to block off the modifier.

--

also, #1 and #3 are automatically wrong, because they contain a singular verb ("leads"). there's no singular noun, at all, to serve as the subject in either of those sentences.
Thanks, ron
so, takeaways from ur explanations are :-
version 1 is allowed ( their growing pension liabilities, that leads ) if and only if we were given "LEAD" (referrent to LIABILITIES)
version 2 allowed
verson 3 is allowed if and only if we were given "LEAD"
version 4 NOT allowed..
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 278
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:17 pm
Location: Bangalore,India
Thanked: 17 times

by loveusonu » Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
lunarpower wrote:
mmslf75 wrote:Query :

version 1 their growing pension liabilities, that leads
version 2 their growing pension liabilities, which lead
version 3 their growing pension liabilities that leads
version 4 their growing pension liabilities which leads ..

Are all the 4 versions correct in some way?
Can any1 please help me understand as to how one must decide between "WHICH" and "THAT" with / without comma ?
Are "comma + that " & "no comma + which" valid on GMAT ??

Please help
as far as we've seen on the gmat, you cannot ever have "which" without a comma immediately beforehand.

"that" is NOT supposed to be preceded by a comma, but it could be - IF the comma belongs to another modifier that intervenes before "that".
for instance:
i'm looking for a TV that costs less than $200.
you can write
i'm looking for a TV, with a remote, that costs less than $200.
here it appears that there's a "comma + that", but this is mostly an illusion: the comma before "that" isn't actually part of the main structure at all. it's used only to block off the modifier.

--

also, #1 and #3 are automatically wrong, because they contain a singular verb ("leads"). there's no singular noun, at all, to serve as the subject in either of those sentences.
Ron,
I agree #3 is wrong because of singular 'leads' however even if it were 'lead' then also they should be incorrect. Here's Why?

their growing pension liabilities that lead: Structure is Growing(Adjective) + PensionLiabilities(Noun). 'That' modifies the previous NOUN, which is 'pension liabilities'. However pension Liabilities doesn't lead us anywhere, its the situation of growing pension liabilities leads us somehwhere?

Let me know if I am correct here.
Sonu
--------
When you want something desperately, the whole Universe conspires in helping to give it to you - The Alchemist
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:52 am
mmslf75 wrote:Thanks, ron
so, takeaways from ur explanations are :-
version 1 is allowed ( their growing pension liabilities, that leads ) if and only if we were given "LEAD" (referrent to LIABILITIES)
version 2 allowed
verson 3 is allowed if and only if we were given "LEAD"
version 4 NOT allowed..
no, that's not what i meant. i was just answering the question about whether "no comma + which" and "comma + that" are allowed, in general. (answer: never, for the first one; also never, for the second one, unless the comma actually belongs to another construction.)

actually, none of these choices #1-4 really makes sense.
the interpretation that makes the most sense is that it's the action of confronting the growing pension liabilities that is leading local politicians to blah blah blah, so we need an adverbial modifier that modifies this whole clause. this is precisely the function of the "comma + -ing" modifier in the official choice (D).

you COULD conceivably use a "which" modifier, to modify the pension liabilities themselves. but, if you're going to do that, you don't want the present tense; you want one of the following 2 tenses:
...to confront the growing pension liabilities, which are leading local politicians to...
...to confront the growing pension liabilities, which have led local politicians to...
the first of these creates a parallel structure with "are beginning". you would want this parallel structure if you were implying that local politicians are just starting to do this.
the second of these implies that local politicians have already taken substantive action.

so, basically, NONE of #1-4 would be correct.

...and no, "comma + that" in version 1 is totally wrong. take a look at my example again; the only time you can have "comma + that" is if the comma belongs to another modifier, which is inserted right before "that".
note that this modifier is shown in red in my example.
version #1 contains no such modifier - it's trying to place a comma before a normal "that" - so it's wrong.

--

#3 is also wrong.
three reasons:
* lack of s-v agreement
* it doesn't make sense to use a restrictive modifier here (you're talking about growing pension liabilities in general, so any modifier you use should be non-restrictive)
and...
* new takeaway: you can't use a "that" modifier after a possessive pronoun.
i'm thinking about this right now, and discovering that it's an absolute rule - i can't think of any exceptions.
i.e.,
their NOUN, which CLAUSE --> this is fine
their NOUN that CLAUSE --> this is not fine.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:53 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:2 members

by mmslf75 » Tue Dec 15, 2009 7:32 am
lunarpower wrote:
mmslf75 wrote:Thanks, ron
so, takeaways from ur explanations are :-
version 1 is allowed ( their growing pension liabilities, that leads ) if and only if we were given "LEAD" (referrent to LIABILITIES)
version 2 allowed
verson 3 is allowed if and only if we were given "LEAD"
version 4 NOT allowed..
no, that's not what i meant. i was just answering the question about whether "no comma + which" and "comma + that" are allowed, in general. (answer: never, for the first one; also never, for the second one, unless the comma actually belongs to another construction.)

actually, none of these choices #1-4 really makes sense.
the interpretation that makes the most sense is that it's the action of confronting the growing pension liabilities that is leading local politicians to blah blah blah, so we need an adverbial modifier that modifies this whole clause. this is precisely the function of the "comma + -ing" modifier in the official choice (D).

you COULD conceivably use a "which" modifier, to modify the pension liabilities themselves. but, if you're going to do that, you don't want the present tense; you want one of the following 2 tenses:
...to confront the growing pension liabilities, which are leading local politicians to...
...to confront the growing pension liabilities, which have led local politicians to...
the first of these creates a parallel structure with "are beginning". you would want this parallel structure if you were implying that local politicians are just starting to do this.
the second of these implies that local politicians have already taken substantive action.

so, basically, NONE of #1-4 would be correct.

...and no, "comma + that" in version 1 is totally wrong. take a look at my example again; the only time you can have "comma + that" is if the comma belongs to another modifier, which is inserted right before "that".
note that this modifier is shown in red in my example.
version #1 contains no such modifier - it's trying to place a comma before a normal "that" - so it's wrong.

--

#3 is also wrong.
three reasons:
* lack of s-v agreement
* it doesn't make sense to use a restrictive modifier here (you're talking about growing pension liabilities in general, so any modifier you use should be non-restrictive)
and...
* new takeaway: you can't use a "that" modifier after a possessive pronoun.
i'm thinking about this right now, and discovering that it's an absolute rule - i can't think of any exceptions.
i.e.,
their NOUN, which CLAUSE --> this is fine
their NOUN that CLAUSE --> this is not fine.

Oh, great explanations..
Got newtakeaways from this ,

1) you can't use a "that" modifier after a possessive pronoun: their NOUN that CLAUSE
2) NO COMMA + WHICH never possible
3) COMMA + THAT possible, iff the comma belongs to another modifier, which is inserted right before "that".
Example: got in one RC on close reading... :
Clark believes this possibility has been obscured by the recent sociological fashion, exemplified by Braverman's analysis, that emphasizes the way machinery reflects social choices.


I am sorry, but did not gather why do u insist on using "present continuous / present perfect " ? "which leading and which have led " any specific reson
Even though the former part of the sentence says "beginning".. Why must you use "present continuous / present perfect " ?
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:30 pm
mmslf75 wrote:I am sorry, but did not gather why do u insist on using "present continuous / present perfect " ? "which leading and which have led " any specific reson
Even though the former part of the sentence says "beginning".. Why must you use "present continuous / present perfect " ?
it's a bit subtle, but i'll do my best to explain it.

basically:

* if you use the present tense to describe EVENTS or CHAINS OF CAUSATION (which normally use action verbs - NOT "is"/"are"/etc), then you are implying that your statement is some kind of universal truth.
if you want to say that something is going on right now, then you use the progressive (is/are ---ing).
if you want to say that something has happened and that its effects are currently being felt, then you use the present perfect.

examples:

tax increases lead to decreases in state revenue, as individuals begin to place a lower priority on work given the larger tax burden
--> present tense. this sentence implies that this is GENERALLY the case (at least unless the world changes in some drastic way).

tax increases are leading to decreases in state revenue, as individuals are beginning to place a lower priority on work given the larger tax burden
--> progressive. implies that this is ongoing at the moment, but it's just a point event (i.e., this sentence does not posit any sort of general pattern). also implies that the effects of this change are not yet being felt (either not fully, or not yet at all).

tax increases have led to decreases in state revenue, as individuals have begun to place a lower priority on work given the larger tax burden
--> present perfect. implies not only that these events have already occurred, but also that their effects are currently being felt.

--

on the other hand, it's perfectly acceptable to use present-tense forms of "to be" (such as "is" and "are"), since these are usually general truths.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:53 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:2 members

by mmslf75 » Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:48 am
lunarpower wrote:
mmslf75 wrote:I am sorry, but did not gather why do u insist on using "present continuous / present perfect " ? "which leading and which have led " any specific reson
Even though the former part of the sentence says "beginning".. Why must you use "present continuous / present perfect " ?
it's a bit subtle, but i'll do my best to explain it.

basically:

* if you use the present tense to describe EVENTS or CHAINS OF CAUSATION (which normally use action verbs - NOT "is"/"are"/etc), then you are implying that your statement is some kind of universal truth.
if you want to say that something is going on right now, then you use the progressive (is/are ---ing).
if you want to say that something has happened and that its effects are currently being felt, then you use the present perfect.

examples:

tax increases lead to decreases in state revenue, as individuals begin to place a lower priority on work given the larger tax burden
--> present tense. this sentence implies that this is GENERALLY the case (at least unless the world changes in some drastic way).

tax increases are leading to decreases in state revenue, as individuals are beginning to place a lower priority on work given the larger tax burden
--> progressive. implies that this is ongoing at the moment, but it's just a point event (i.e., this sentence does not posit any sort of general pattern). also implies that the effects of this change are not yet being felt (either not fully, or not yet at all).

tax increases have led to decreases in state revenue, as individuals have begun to place a lower priority on work given the larger tax burden
--> present perfect. implies not only that these events have already occurred, but also that their effects are currently being felt.

--

on the other hand, it's perfectly acceptable to use present-tense forms of "to be" (such as "is" and "are"), since these are usually general truths.
The results of the company?s cost- cutting measures are evident in its profits, which increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it fell over the last two years.
A. which increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it fell
B. which had increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it had fallen
C. which have increased five percent during the first three months of this year after falling
D. with a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after falling
E. with a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after
having fallen

OA is C

I know why A is wrong .. IT cannot stand for PROFITS.

I will like to know when does one use INCREASED OR HAVE INCREASED here ??

From what I know, HAVE' stands for a present perfect.. indicating that the sentence was written immediately at the end of 3 months..(if so)
How does one know which option to pick here...

Secondly, "falling over last 2 years " is it acceptable ?
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Sat Dec 19, 2009 8:22 pm
mmslf75 wrote:I will like to know when does one use INCREASED OR HAVE INCREASED here ??

From what I know, HAVE' stands for a present perfect.. indicating that the sentence was written immediately at the end of 3 months..(if so)
How does one know which option to pick here...

Secondly, "falling over last 2 years " is it acceptable ?
they'd both be acceptable.
if the sentence were written immediately at the end of that 3-month period, it would use "have increased" (as you wrote).
if the sentence were written at a later time, it would use "increased".
since there's no context to determine which of these is the case, either is acceptable. therefore, you will have to use other criteria for your elimination.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:53 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:2 members

by mmslf75 » Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:13 am
lunarpower wrote:
mmslf75 wrote:I will like to know when does one use INCREASED OR HAVE INCREASED here ??

From what I know, HAVE' stands for a present perfect.. indicating that the sentence was written immediately at the end of 3 months..(if so)
How does one know which option to pick here...

Secondly, "falling over last 2 years " is it acceptable ?
they'd both be acceptable.
if the sentence were written immediately at the end of that 3-month period, it would use "have increased" (as you wrote).
if the sentence were written at a later time, it would use "increased".
since there's no context to determine which of these is the case, either is acceptable. therefore, you will have to use other criteria for your elimination.
So i am thinking on right lines...great...!!

But RON, what's the criteria then to eliminate ??

Can u list down the specifics for usage of HAVE BEEN/HAVE -ed, the way u did for HAD/HAD BEEN
> Events not parallel > Event has an impact or influence > Earlier takes PAST PERFECT //
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Sun Dec 20, 2009 11:08 am
mmslf75 wrote:Can u list down the specifics for usage of HAVE BEEN/HAVE -ed, the way u did for HAD/HAD BEEN
> Events not parallel > Event has an impact or influence > Earlier takes PAST PERFECT //
the usage of "has/have -ed" is pretty closely related to the usage of the past perfect. the principal difference is that, instead of considering the impact/influence on some other past event, we're now considering the impact on / influence on / relevance to the PRESENT (which, unlike past events/time markers, doesn't have to be articulated in the sentence).

there are a few instances in which the present tense is used; here are three:

(1) events that have just ended in the present, carry on up to the present, or continue into the present:
i have been sick lately.
unemployment figures have risen for the last six months.

(2) past events that have some relevance to the present:
let's say that you visited argentina in 1988.
- if you were talking to someone about argentina - so that this visit is relevant to the current conversation - then you would say, i have been to argentina.
- if you were just talking to someone about your travels around the world, and the conversation bore no particular relevance to argentina, you would just say, i went to argentina.

by the way, this is the rationale for the commonly-witnessed construction "studies have shown..." or "X has/have said that..."
the idea is that, even if these studies were done / statements were made long ago, they are still relevant to the current topic of discussion, so they take the present perfect

(3) idioms that demand the present perfect
i don't have a list of these off the top of my head (you may wish to try your luck at googling this)
but here's one example:
if a sentence starts off with "Since X, ...", the following clause MUST be in the present perfect.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:53 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:2 members

by mmslf75 » Sun Dec 20, 2009 11:29 am
lunarpower wrote:
mmslf75 wrote:Can u list down the specifics for usage of HAVE BEEN/HAVE -ed, the way u did for HAD/HAD BEEN
> Events not parallel > Event has an impact or influence > Earlier takes PAST PERFECT //
the usage of "has/have -ed" is pretty closely related to the usage of the past perfect. the principal difference is that, instead of considering the impact/influence on some other past event, we're now considering the impact on / influence on / relevance to the PRESENT (which, unlike past events/time markers, doesn't have to be articulated in the sentence).

there are a few instances in which the present tense is used; here are three:

(1) events that have just ended in the present, carry on up to the present, or continue into the present:
i have been sick lately.
unemployment figures have risen for the last six months.

(2) past events that have some relevance to the present:
let's say that you visited argentina in 1988.
- if you were talking to someone about argentina - so that this visit is relevant to the current conversation - then you would say, i have been to argentina.
- if you were just talking to someone about your travels around the world, and the conversation bore no particular relevance to argentina, you would just say, i went to argentina.

by the way, this is the rationale for the commonly-witnessed construction "studies have shown..." or "X has/have said that..."
the idea is that, even if these studies were done / statements were made long ago, they are still relevant to the current topic of discussion, so they take the present perfect

(3) idioms that demand the present perfect
i don't have a list of these off the top of my head (you may wish to try your luck at googling this)
but here's one example:
if a sentence starts off with "Since X, ...", the following clause MUST be in the present perfect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WOW... Simply Superb RON....!!
Thanks,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


]So in the above sentence A or C, which one does the job better, I believe since OA is C, the author has written the sentence atthe immediate end of 3 months ( he wants us to think that way..--Indefinite time scenario )
wat say ??
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I found a rare example on the GMATPrep...here as well,

https://www.beatthegmat.com/gmatprep-les ... 23763.html


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

Answer: A

Is this a rare example out here ??
Check what A says...!!
I cannot find any second/first event here, but A is right !

Is this a RARE scenario...things like these confound me... :-(
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Sun Dec 20, 2009 2:27 pm
mmslf75 wrote:I found a rare example on the GMATPrep...here as well,

https://www.beatthegmat.com/gmatprep-les ... 23763.html


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

Answer: A

Is this a rare example out here ??
Check what A says...!!
I cannot find any second/first event here, but A is right !

Is this a RARE scenario...things like these confound me... :-(
the first thing you should note here is that you don't have to choose the past perfect; it's not in the underlined part. therefore, the onus of selecting the past perfect in this scenario is not on you.

in any case, this is similar in structure to the example ("bob beamon's world record") that i gave here:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/usage-of-had ... tml#210217

here's the best way i can describe it:
if the following two conditions are both true -
(1) you're describing a process or condition that persisted up until some given time in the past;
(2) the END RESULT of the process, not the process itself, is the emphasis of the sentence;
- then you should use the past perfect.

for instance:

let's say that jesse flew almost a million miles for business travel over the course of two years.

if i want to emphasize the journeys themselves - for instance, in a larger paragraph detailing the cities to which jesse traveled, and what he did when he was in those cities - then i would write
jesse flew almost a million miles during those two years.

if i want to emphasize the RESULTS of jesse's having flown such a large number of miles - i.e., he's really exhausted from all that travel - then i would write
jesse had flown almost a million miles during those two years.

--

this african honeybee problem is definitely the latter of these two. we're only emphasizing the END RESULT of the bees' journey, i.e., the fact that they got all the way up to texas. therefore, the past perfect is more appropriate.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:53 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:2 members

by mmslf75 » Mon Dec 21, 2009 12:16 am
lunarpower wrote:
mmslf75 wrote:I found a rare example on the GMATPrep...here as well,

https://www.beatthegmat.com/gmatprep-les ... 23763.html


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

Answer: A

Is this a rare example out here ??
Check what A says...!!
I cannot find any second/first event here, but A is right !

Is this a RARE scenario...things like these confound me... :-(
the first thing you should note here is that you don't have to choose the past perfect; it's not in the underlined part. therefore, the onus of selecting the past perfect in this scenario is not on you.

in any case, this is similar in structure to the example ("bob beamon's world record") that i gave here:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/usage-of-had ... tml#210217

here's the best way i can describe it:
if the following two conditions are both true -
(1) you're describing a process or condition that persisted up until some given time in the past;
(2) the END RESULT of the process, not the process itself, is the emphasis of the sentence;
- then you should use the past perfect.

for instance:

let's say that jesse flew almost a million miles for business travel over the course of two years.

if i want to emphasize the journeys themselves - for instance, in a larger paragraph detailing the cities to which jesse traveled, and what he did when he was in those cities - then i would write
jesse flew almost a million miles during those two years.

if i want to emphasize the RESULTS of jesse's having flown such a large number of miles - i.e., he's really exhausted from all that travel - then i would write
jesse had flown almost a million miles during those two years.

--

this african honeybee problem is definitely the latter of these two. we're only emphasizing the END RESULT of the bees' journey, i.e., the fact that they got all the way up to texas. therefore, the past perfect is more appropriate.


Can I use this as an example under

(1) you're describing a process or condition that persisted up until some given time in the past;

jesse had flown almost a million miles during those two years.
In 1997, the figure had grown blah blah .....
Top
Post new topic Locked