SticklorForDetails wrote:As is often the case when you bring up fascinatingly weird questions, mundasingh, the reason is more logic than grammar. We are told the provision was never applied in the past -- therefore, we can't use any tense that implies that Congress has ever actually been held to this requirement. They haven't been. They weren't in the past or at any time between the past and present.

The correct answer uses the present perfect for the non-application of the provision, so that it wasn't applied at any point in the past and still isn't now, and then the present tense to remind us of what the provision actually (present tense) does require of Congress, even though in the past it has never been applied.

mundasingh123 wrote:Under a provision of the Constitution that was never applied. Congress has been required to call a convention for considering possible amendments to the document when formally asked to do it by the legislatures of two-thirds of the states.
(A) was never applied, Congress has been required to call a convention for considering possible
amendments to the document when formally asked to do it
(B) was never applied, there has been a requirement that Congress call a convention for consideration of possible amendments to the document when asked to do it formally
(C) was never applied, whereby Congress is required to call a convention for considering possible
amendments to the document when asked to do it formally
(D) has never been applied, whereby Congress is required to call a convention to consider possible
amendments to the document when formally asked to do so
(E) has never been applied. Congress is required to call a convention to consider possible amendments to the document when formally asked to do so

OG Explanation :

Choices A, B, C, and D contain tense errors (the use of was never applied with has been required in A, for example)

whats wrong with using was never applied with has been required in A