Sentence Correction

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

I chose C and it is wrong. But I want to explain why I chose C. The main sentence of the period is:
"their descendants,[..],had migrated[..]". So I thought: " whom is their descendants referred to?" (clearly the african honeybees). Now let's read again the sentence simplifying:
"Less than 35 years after the release [..], their descendants[..]. It sounds like their descendats refers to "the release", which makes no sence. And this reasoning could be applied to A-B-D-E. But with C:
"In less than the 35 years since African honeybees had been released[..], their descendants[..]"
sounds much better.
So, my question is: shouldn't the sentence start with "African honeybees" instead of "release"?

simone88 wrote: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

I chose C and it is wrong. But I want to explain why I chose C. The main sentence of the period is:
"their descendants,[..],had migrated[..]". So I thought: " whom is their descendants referred to?" (clearly the african honeybees). Now let's read again the sentence simplifying:
"Less than 35 years after the release [..], their descendants[..]. It sounds like their descendats refers to "the release", which makes no sence. And this reasoning could be applied to A-B-D-E. But with C:
"In less than the 35 years since African honeybees had been released[..], their descendants[..]"
sounds much better.
So, my question is: shouldn't the sentence start with "African honeybees" instead of "release"?

In the OA (answer choice A), there is no pronoun error or ambiguity: the only logical antecedent for their (plural) is African honeybees (the nearest preceding plural noun).
It is not necessary that the referent for their be the subject of the preceding clause.
Consider SC44 in the OG12:
The plot of The Bostonians centers on the rivalry that develops between OLIVE CHANCELLOR, an active feminist, and BASIL RANSOM, her charming and cynical cousin, when THEY find themselves drawn to the same radiant young WOMAN whose talent for public speaking has won HER an ardent following.
Here, the referent for they is not plot (the preceding subject) but Oliver Chancellor and Basil Ransom (both objects of the preposition between).
Similarly, in the OA above, the referent for their is African honeybees (object of the preposition of).

Can someone comment on the tense problems and other reasons for eliminating C ?

gughanbose wrote:Can someone comment on the tense problems and other reasons for eliminating C ?

Let's say that January 1, 1900 = the release of the bees.

A: 35 years after the release of African honeybees
Here, 35 years after the release implies January 1, 1900 + 35 years = January 1, 1935.

C: 35 years since African honeybees HAD BEEN RELEASED
Since January 1, 1900 = the release of the bees, on January 1, 1950, the bees HAD already BEEN RELEASED.
Thus, 35 years since African Honeybees HAD BEEN RELEASED could imply January 1, 1950 + 35 years = January 1, 1985.
Not the intended meaning.
Eliminate C.

simone88 wrote: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

I can eliminate D and E becasue of when and then. Now in C , the article 'the' before 35 years is incorrect.Also i don't think the usage of past perfect is justified here.
I hope i am eliminating options because of the correct reasons. Can an expert please comment. Now between A and B i was really confused. I went with B because of I less than blah blah, their blah blah made more sense to me. Can somebody explain why B is incorrect ?

Thanks!

Blue_Skies wrote:Can somebody explain why B is incorrect ?

Thanks!

B: Since RELEASING African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, THEIR DESCENDANTS...
The implication here is that THEIR DESCENDANTS were responsible for RELEASING African honeybees outside Sao Paolo.
Not the intended meaning.
Eliminate B.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

simone88 wrote: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

I chose C and it is wrong. But I want to explain why I chose C. The main sentence of the period is:
"their descendants,[..],had migrated[..]". So I thought: " whom is their descendants referred to?" (clearly the african honeybees). Now let's read again the sentence simplifying:
"Less than 35 years after the release [..], their descendants[..]. It sounds like their descendats refers to "the release", which makes no sence. And this reasoning could be applied to A-B-D-E. But with C:
"In less than the 35 years since African honeybees had been released[..], their descendants[..]"
sounds much better.
So, my question is: shouldn't the sentence start with "African honeybees" instead of "release"?

In the OA (answer choice A), there is no pronoun error or ambiguity: the only logical antecedent for their (plural) is African honeybees (the nearest preceding plural noun).
It is not necessary that the referent for their be the subject of the preceding clause.
Consider SC44 in the OG12:
The plot of The Bostonians centers on the rivalry that develops between OLIVE CHANCELLOR, an active feminist, and BASIL RANSOM, her charming and cynical cousin, when THEY find themselves drawn to the same radiant young WOMAN whose talent for public speaking has won HER an ardent following.
Here, the referent for they is not plot (the preceding subject) but Oliver Chancellor and Basil Ransom (both objects of the preposition between).
Similarly, in the OA above, the referent for their is African honeybees (object of the preposition of).

Hi Mitch,

Could you please explain use of past perfect in this question. We use this for two events in past . I didnt understand where is the second event.

pawan750 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:

simone88 wrote: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

I chose C and it is wrong. But I want to explain why I chose C. The main sentence of the period is:
"their descendants,[..],had migrated[..]". So I thought: " whom is their descendants referred to?" (clearly the african honeybees). Now let's read again the sentence simplifying:
"Less than 35 years after the release [..], their descendants[..]. It sounds like their descendats refers to "the release", which makes no sence. And this reasoning could be applied to A-B-D-E. But with C:
"In less than the 35 years since African honeybees had been released[..], their descendants[..]"
sounds much better.
So, my question is: shouldn't the sentence start with "African honeybees" instead of "release"?

In the OA (answer choice A), there is no pronoun error or ambiguity: the only logical antecedent for their (plural) is African honeybees (the nearest preceding plural noun).
It is not necessary that the referent for their be the subject of the preceding clause.
Consider SC44 in the OG12:
The plot of The Bostonians centers on the rivalry that develops between OLIVE CHANCELLOR, an active feminist, and BASIL RANSOM, her charming and cynical cousin, when THEY find themselves drawn to the same radiant young WOMAN whose talent for public speaking has won HER an ardent following.
Here, the referent for they is not plot (the preceding subject) but Oliver Chancellor and Basil Ransom (both objects of the preposition between).
Similarly, in the OA above, the referent for their is African honeybees (object of the preposition of).

Hi Mitch,

Could you please explain use of past perfect in this question. We use this for two events in past . I didnt understand where is the second event.

Less than 35 years after the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paolo, their descendants had migrated as far north as southern Texas.
Conveyed meaning:
AT SOME MOMENT IN THE PAST -- a moment less than 35 years after the release of the bees -- their descendants HAD MIGRATED.
In other words, the migration was completed BEFORE this moment in the past.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

pawan750 wrote: Hi Mitch,

Could you please explain use of past perfect in this question. We use this for two events in past . I didnt understand where is the second event.

Less than 35 years after the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paolo, their descendants had migrated as far north as southern Texas.
Conveyed meaning:
AT SOME MOMENT IN THE PAST -- a moment less than 35 years after the release of the bees -- their descendants HAD MIGRATED.
In other words, the migration was completed BEFORE this moment in the past.

@ GMATGuruNY - Not able to get this! When there is AFTER,how the second action can take PAST PERFECT ?

The migration of the descendants should have been completed at that PARTICULAR MOMENT -- a moment less than 35 years after the release of the bees -- NOT BEFORE this moment in the past, I think.

Kindly explain!

RBBmba@2014 wrote:The migration of the descendants should have been completed at that PARTICULAR MOMENT -- a moment less than 35 years after the release of the bees -- NOT BEFORE this moment in the past, I think.

Kindly explain!

This line of reasoning overlooks the difference between the past tense and the past perfect tense.

Let DAY X = a day less than 35 years after the release of the bees.

Less than 35 years after the release of the bees, their descendants migrated.
Conveyed meaning:
On DAY X, their descendants migrated.
In other words, the migration took place ON DAY X.

Less than 35 years after the release of the bees, their descendants HAD migrated.
Conveyed meaning:
On Day X, their descendants HAD already migrated.
In other words, the migration was completed sometime BEFORE DAY X.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote:The migration of the descendants should have been completed at that PARTICULAR MOMENT -- a moment less than 35 years after the release of the bees -- NOT BEFORE this moment in the past, I think.

Kindly explain!

This line of reasoning overlooks the difference between the past tense and the past perfect tense.

Let DAY X = a day less than 35 years after the release of the bees.

Less than 35 years after the release of the bees, their descendants migrated.
Conveyed meaning:
On DAY X, their descendants migrated.
In other words, the migration took place ON DAY X.

Less than 35 years after the release of the bees, their descendants HAD migrated.
Conveyed meaning:
On Day X, their descendants HAD already migrated.
In other words, the migration was completed sometime BEFORE DAY X.

Hi GMATGuruNY - could you please share any other Official examples in which PAST PERFECT has been used in the same way as it has been in this SC (in spite of the presence of some TIME-INDICATORs such as AFTER )?

Much thanks in advance!

@ GMATGuruNY - could you please share your feedback on my IMMEDIATE above post ?

Much thanks in advance!

RBBmba@2014 wrote:
Hi GMATGuruNY - could you please share any other Official examples in which PAST PERFECT has been used in the same way as it has been in this SC (in spite of the presence of some TIME-INDICATORs such as AFTER )?

Much thanks in advance!

Offhand, I cannot cite another official example.
This sort of usage of the past perfect is quite rare.

Another non-official example:
Less than 10 minutes after the start of the movie, John had walked out.
Let MOMENT X = a moment less than 10 minutes after the start of the movie.
Conveyed meaning:
At MOMENT X, John HAD already walked out.
In other words, his exit was completed sometime BEFORE MOMENT X.

GMATGuruNY wrote:Let's say that January 1, 1900 = the release of the bees.

C: 35 years since African honeybees HAD BEEN RELEASED
Since January 1, 1900 = the release of the bees, on January 1, 1950, the bees HAD already BEEN RELEASED.
Thus, 35 years since African Honeybees HAD BEEN RELEASED could imply January 1, 1950 + 35 years = January 1, 1985.
Not the intended meaning.
Eliminate C.

while I can understand your above explanation, got a few concerns on this -

1. isn't the sentence structure of option C itself awkward ?

2. when "since" is used to denote a time frame, doesn't the perfect tense come into play by default ? I mean, isn't this construction -- since + past/present perfect + time -- correct, generally ?

3. if we have "35 years since African Honeybees WAS RELEASED", then will it imply the following ?
January 1, 1900 + 35 years = January 1, 1935

gmatguru,
any thoughts on the above concern ?

thank you!