Pick B.

"this number", "the amount" and "the number of applications" are all wrong.

Hope that helps..

hardik.jadeja wrote:Pick B.

"this number", "the amount" and "the number of applications" are all wrong.

Hope that helps..

Do you mean : this numbers wrong bcoz it does not match with "applications";

"the number of applications" - is it bcoz of brevity or some other reason. Thanks

paes wrote:In the 1970's an elite preschool in New York City had approximately 150 applications per year, and by the 1990's,this number rose to 3,000.

(A) this number rose

(B) the number had risen

(C) the amount had risen

(D) this number was raised

(E) the number of applications had risen

OA Later

Hardik why using past perfect 2 times ?

pnk wrote: Do you mean : this numbers wrong bcoz it does not match with "applications";

"This number" is an incorrect reference. It should be the number, which correctly represents the number of applications per year.

pnk wrote: "the number of applications" - is it bcoz of brevity or some other reason. Thanks

Yes. the number is sufficient here. And in case, you want to expand it, then should have been "the number of applications per year".

nikhilkatira wrote: Hardik why using past perfect 2 times ?

In the 1970's an elite preschool in New York City had approximately 150 applications per year.

This sentence is in Past Tense, not in Past Perfect. HAD is used here as past tense of HAVE.

The first part of the sentence is in the past tense and the next part of the sentence is in the future, relative to the past event. Hence the corresponding tense 'rose' is incorrect. It has to be past participle, because the relationship is to a past event. So 'had risen' makes sense.

I believe

sentence will be correct only when it read like...

In the 1970's an elite preschool in New York City had had approximately 150 applications.....

hardik.jadeja wrote:

pnk wrote: Do you mean : this numbers wrong bcoz it does not match with "applications";

"This number" is an incorrect reference. It should be the number, which correctly represents the number of applications per year.

pnk wrote: "the number of applications" - is it bcoz of brevity or some other reason. Thanks

Yes. the number is sufficient here. And in case, you want to expand it, then should have been "the number of applications per year".

nikhilkatira wrote: Hardik why using past perfect 2 times ?

In the 1970's an elite preschool in New York City had approximately 150 applications per year.

This sentence is in Past Tense, not in Past Perfect. HAD is used here as past tense of HAVE.

The first part of the sentence is in the past tense and the next part of the sentence is in the future, relative to the past event. Hence the corresponding tense 'rose' is incorrect. It has to be past participle, because the relationship is to a past event. So 'had risen' makes sense.

Hardik I am not able to understand your explanation...I guess my SC is very weak..
can you explain in a better way...
I hope you dont mind..

nikhilkatira wrote: Hardik I am not able to understand your explanation...I guess my SC is very weak..
can you explain in a better way...
I hope you dont mind..

I am not an expert but let me try.. A past perfect tense sentence will always have multi-part verb. Eg: had risen, had eaten, had received, had had

The following sentence is written in present tense, not in present perfect tense.

I have two pencils. (I=subject; have=verb; two pencils=object)

Similarly, if you want to write the above sentence in past tense, then it would be

I had two pencils. (I=subject; had=verb; two pencils=object)

The following sentence is similar to the one above.

An elite preschool in New York City had approximately 150 applications per year.
(An elite preschool in New York City=subject; had=verb; approximately 150 applications per year=object.)

Hope that helps..

Jadeja,

I agree with your explanation (and I am able to discard A, C, D and E ), except for the usage of past perfect.

The first part

In the 1970's an elite preschool in New York City had approximately 150 applications per year, --> Simple past, event in 1970

Second part :
and by the 1990's, the number had risen to 3,000. -> the second event is later than 1970, so it can't be in past perfect.

Had the first part been in past perfect and second part in simple past then I will accept it.
OR
Because the two events are independent, so simple past in both the parts should work fine.


Please share your thoughts.

Well, your reasoning makes sense. In that case all the options have issue. Whats the source?

paes wrote:Jadeja,

I agree with your explanation (and I am able to discard A, C, D and E ), except for the usage of past perfect.

The first part

In the 1970's an elite preschool in New York City had approximately 150 applications per year, --> Simple past, event in 1970

Second part :
and by the 1990's, the number had risen to 3,000. -> the second event is later than 1970, so it can't be in past perfect.

Had the first part been in past perfect and second part in simple past then I will accept it.
OR
Because the two events are independent, so simple past in both the parts should work fine.


Please share your thoughts.

I think 2nd part can be past perfect tense. Look at this constrution: The band U2 ws just just one of the many new groups on the rock musicscene in early 1980's, but less than ten yrs later, U2 had fully ecipsed its early rivals in the pantheon of popular music (source MGMAT). I think B is the right answer

Hi pnk,

But will it not contradict the past perfect and simple past. We use past perfect for the actions that happened prior to the past action.

But for events in 1990 - we are using past perfect. But, this happened after the 1970's event.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks,
Viju

hardik.jadeja wrote:Well, your reasoning makes sense. In that case all the options have issue. Whats the source?

Source is
Princeton test-2