Oh, wow - this question has been sitting here all day with no responses? This is one of my all-time favorites...must be my lucky day! Thanks for letting me take this one...

1) This is a classic "Decision Points" lesson - if you look at the last word of each answer choice, you see multiple verb tenses: "were", "had been", and "have been". It's a verb tense problem, so situate the events in order and test the verb tenses to make sure they make logical sense. What really should happen here is:

First - the buildings were built, in violation of code
Second - last year, an earthquake damaged those buildings

Logically, the "have been" answer choices (C and D) don't make sense...the damaged buildings aren't currently being built in violation of code; the point of the sentence is that it's not surprising that many of those were damaged, as originally they had been built not up to code.

"Had been" perfectly summarizes this sequence of events. The buildings that WERE destroyed last year HAD (previously) BEEN constructed in violation of code. So B and E are looking like great choices. A...A just doesn't quite set that timeline up well enough. If you perhaps added the word "originally" after "were" you could effectively tell the reader the order of events, but as it is with just a simple past-tense "were", the meaning of the sentence isn't clear.


2) Check the meaning of the sentence! Perhaps the most glaring flaw in A, once you've noticed it, is that buildings cannot be both "destroyed AND heavily damaged". "Destroyed" already includes "heavily damaged" - just to a much higher degree. So A is illogical in its description, plus it has a dubious verb tense in "were".

Similarly, E has a real meaning problem, as it starts with the phrase "Last year". That modifier controls the entire subject-predicate relationship of "some of the buildings...had been constructed". But it's illogical to say that, all in the same year, these buildings were constructed and destroyed.

Brian, thanks for taking the question.
But what if the buildings were constructed and destroyed all in the same year, even though it might sound hypothetical.

Even if you think that, it would be wrong, since in that case, you would be at least in some ways, altering the meaning of the original sentence. In general, the intent should be to preserve the meaning of the original sentence.

Ashish, could you please explain how it alters the meaning.

This is a perfect example of the fact that there is no original meaning in sentence correction! Choice A has a meaning but that does not make it THE MEANING.

As Brian has mentioned LOGIC plays a huge role in sentence correction. In the case of this sentence the original (choice A) is not logical.

Rishijhawar - it is not that the buildings were constructed and destroyed in the same year. It is that the buildings were DAMAGED AND DESTROYED IN THE SAME EARTHQUAKE. That is what is not logical. They should either be damaged or destroyed.

Here is a link to an article (posting) I wrote a few months ago about meaning in sentence correction. Remember it is more important that you preserve the intended meaning - which is always the logical meaning. You do not however need to preserve the meaning of answer choice A.

https://www.beatthegmat.com/the-truth-ab ... 76648.html

David, I think your explanation and research is awesome. Thanks a lot. Thanks Bryan and Ashish.

great xplanation brain@veritasprep

thanx:)

Brian@VeritasPrep wrote:Oh, wow - this question has been sitting here all day with no responses? This is one of my all-time favorites...must be my lucky day! Thanks for letting me take this one...

1) This is a classic "Decision Points" lesson - if you look at the last word of each answer choice, you see multiple verb tenses: "were", "had been", and "have been". It's a verb tense problem, so situate the events in order and test the verb tenses to make sure they make logical sense. What really should happen here is:

First - the buildings were built, in violation of code
Second - last year, an earthquake damaged those buildings

Logically, the "have been" answer choices (C and D) don't make sense...the damaged buildings aren't currently being built in violation of code; the point of the sentence is that it's not surprising that many of those were damaged, as originally they had been built not up to code.

"Had been" perfectly summarizes this sequence of events. The buildings that WERE destroyed last year HAD (previously) BEEN constructed in violation of code. So B and E are looking like great choices. A...A just doesn't quite set that timeline up well enough. If you perhaps added the word "originally" after "were" you could effectively tell the reader the order of events, but as it is with just a simple past-tense "were", the meaning of the sentence isn't clear.


2) Check the meaning of the sentence! Perhaps the most glaring flaw in A, once you've noticed it, is that buildings cannot be both "destroyed AND heavily damaged". "Destroyed" already includes "heavily damaged" - just to a much higher degree. So A is illogical in its description, plus it has a dubious verb tense in "were".

Similarly, E has a real meaning problem, as it starts with the phrase "Last year". That modifier controls the entire subject-predicate relationship of "some of the buildings...had been constructed". But it's illogical to say that, all in the same year, these buildings were constructed and destroyed.