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 .. this refer to 1990

B)the number had risen

C)the amount had risen .. its not the amount ..

D)this number was raised .... it was not raised ..

E)the number of applications had risen ... wordy

sorry, what is your answer?

Is it A or B and why?

Can anyone please explain why A is not correct here.

Why 'Had risen' is getting used?Why not simple past tense

madhur
in A instead of this if the is used then would it have been preffered over B.

and even if no change is made can u clear the role of two HAD if B is correct

Even I have the same Q

Why 'Had risen' is getting used?Why not simple past tense

Both the instances,1970 & 1990, talk about the past
then why not simple past for the latter half of the sentence?

Am I missing something out here ?
Please comment. Thanks!

in case of 2 past events, the previous event is in past perfect and later in simple past. and i think 1970 is earlier past event.
So, past perfect, if had to u use, should be use in 1970
not in 1990

i dont agree with OA

Wht is the source of ques ? is it authentic source?

I think you have to use past perfect because of the word "by".
The sentence is saying that the number of applications had risen to 3000 "by 1990" which means that the number did not jump but had risen steadily throughout those years.
Therefore it is not a single event we are talking about but a period of time.

Nermal is right. There're 2 past time periods in this sentence: 1970s and 1970-1990s (by 1990s)

1970s came before 1990s, so need past perfect.

"by the 1990s" clearly dictates that the action was started before and finished at that specific time which is the 1990s. Because 1990s happened in the past, and the action came before the past, need past perfect