Hey Fred,

Great question - and, actually, if you go back and look at E you'll find that the past-perfect / past usage is the opposite of what you'd expect (isn't that ironic...):

Really, Canada being the ancestral home of many tribes should have happened before it had been known as something. But E puts "had been known" further in the past than "was the ancestral home", so it sets up a pretty illogical timeline. Furthermore, you already have the past-tense "was" in there for Canada ("Canada WAS what HAD BEEN") so the verb tense just for that one verb is inconsistent.

When using past-perfect, there should really be something "extra" to the usage to give further need to set it back further in the past. For example, it's not at all wrong to say:

I brushed my teeth before I went to bed.

Past-perfect sets up a more emphatic statement of timeline, such as:

I had already fallen asleep when it struck me that I needed to brush my teeth.


From what I've seen, it's a lot more common for the GMAT to test the improper use of the past-perfect (you should not use "had" in that situation) than it is for it to test the required use of past-perfect. So hopefully that relieves a little anxiety. But do know that the mere existence of a timeline with two events in the past doesn't alone require past-perfect.

Thanks Brian.
Your explanation really helps.

I can definitely see the logical conflict between 'had been known' coming before 'was the ancestral home'.

Thinking about your comment on the emphatic timeline (and sorry for straying from the question slightly), I guess it would be ok to say:

"Before C BECAME C, it HAD BEEN..." it gives it that stronger link to another event in the less distant past?

Thanks again, much appreciated.
Fred

Hey Fred,

Glad that helped! Yeah, I think your example works, but it probably doesn't require past-perfect either. You're definitely justified in using "had been" in that case, but you could also still say "was known as" and be okay.

Another example that would probably get us closer to requiring past-perfect to make the point clear would be something like:

"Before Canada was named Canada by European settlers, it had already been known for centuries as ______________ by its native people." (I'll just put that blank there so that I don't end up creating revisionist history by making something up!)

There, we're using past-perfect to make it abundantly clear that there were already people who had a name for Canada prior to our modern interpretation, so it would be kind of strange to use the same past tense for both of them when the whole purpose of the sentence is to prove a clear delineation between "this happened long before that did".

that's great, thanks again Bryan.