Sentence Correction

Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he also won the loyalty of its citizens: the invading Danes were well aware of this weakness and used it to their advantage in 893.
(A) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he
(B) The fact that King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he had
(C) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he
(D) The fact that King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean that he
(E) Just because King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he

Another confusing sentence. I bet on A since the chronological order of events is clear. However, the OA is B. In all the instruction I`ve read so far for SC the rule is: use Past Perfect only when necessary; prefer Simple tenses and so on. I do not see any ambiguity concerning the events. Moreover, B seems more unspecific to me because Past Perfect moves the event "winning loyalty of its citizens" somewhere before "fortified", which could refer to both before and after "had occupied". More, I think the causality relationship is more evident in A. Please, provide some response.

Hey replayyy,

Nice work eliminating C, D, and E - each of those is wrong because of that pronoun "it" which does not have a clear antecedent!

Between A and B, I like that you looked at the verb tense, but this one is a little tricky in that:

-The "occupied and fortified" seems to happen (or not happen, as it were) at the same time, as the sentence is saying that one thing did not include the other. Because both "happened" together, the same tense is required.

-"Just" as a modifier ("just like", "just because") is one to be careful with on the GMAT...it means "exactly" or "precisely" and its use is seldom justified in a sentence like this.

OA is B. I would like to explain in simple terms:

C, D and E can be eliminated as the word "it" doesn't have the correct antecedent. Right now it is pointing to London which is nonsensical

The correct answer is B, thus containing two "hads":

The fact that King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he had also won the loyalty of its citizens: the invading Danes were well aware of this weakness and used it to their advantage in 893.

Sequence of events:

886: King Alfred occupies and fortifies London and potentially wins the loyalty of citizens
893: Danes invade

Since 893 is in the simple past (Danes WERE), both events of 886, which is prior to 893, should be in the past perfect (HAD occupied, HAD won).

replayyyy wrote:Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he also won the loyalty of its citizens: the invading Danes were well aware of this weakness and used it to their advantage in 893.
(A) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he
(B) The fact that King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he had
(C) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he
(D) The fact that King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean that he
(E) Just because King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he

Another confusing sentence. I bet on A since the chronological order of events is clear. However, the OA is B. In all the instruction I`ve read so far for SC the rule is: use Past Perfect only when necessary; prefer Simple tenses and so on. I do not see any ambiguity concerning the events. Moreover, B seems more unspecific to me because Past Perfect moves the event "winning loyalty of its citizens" somewhere before "fortified", which could refer to both before and after "had occupied". More, I think the causality relationship is more evident in A. Please, provide some response.