Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 01 Oct 2014, 20:50

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 47
GMAT 1: 680 Q45 V38
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 7

Re: SCV: King Alfred [#permalink] New post 01 May 2012, 03:37
I think this question is ambigious.

On one hand I understand nevergiveups and jainus explanations, but on the other hand the MGMT states that one should use past perfect only when necessary (ie. to clarfiy or emphasize the time sequence). In the sentence here the time sequence is absolutely clear and to keep the sentence as simple as possible we should use simple past, hence A.

So, either OA or MGMT is wrong.
Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1792
Followers: 1276

Kudos [?]: 3596 [1] , given: 185

Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in [#permalink] New post 01 May 2012, 08:53
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
Hi All,

Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he also won the loyalty of its citizens: the invading Danes were well aware of this weakness and used it to their advantage in 893.

Image

Since the meaning of the sentence is easy to understand let’s begin the POE. We will identify the errors in the sentence through POE itself.

Choice A: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he. Incorrect. This choice is incorrect because the verb “did not mean” does not have a subject and that leads to fragment.

Choice B: The fact that King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he had. Correct. In this choice, verb “did not mean” has a subject “the fact” and that fact is that King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886.

Choice C: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he. Incorrect. Pronoun “it” in this choice is referring to the entire preceding. This is incorrect because a pronoun cannot refer to anything but a noun or another pronoun.

Choice D: The fact that King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean that he. Incorrect. There are two errors here.
1. Subject “The fact” does not have a verb and hence we have a fragment here.
2. Pronoun “it” is again referring to the entire preceding clause.

Choice E: Just because King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he. Incorrect. Pronoun “it” is again referring to the entire preceding clause.

PS: Notice that the chronology of the actions in this sentence is very clear. Mention of the specific years when the actions took place establish the sequence clearly. Still the use of past perfect is preferable here because the sentence says "the fact did not mean". If it said "the fact does not mean", then we could easily do with the simple past tense.

Image

1. When the sequence of the events is established by obvious markers, use of past perfect tense becomes optional.
2. Pronoun can only refer to a noun or another pronoun.
3. Every clause, independent or dependent must have subject-verb pair. Absence of any of the two leads to fragment error.

Hope this helps.

Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeT9_Wr0DlI&feature=youtu.be

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Posts: 134
Location: India
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 171 [0], given: 33

Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in [#permalink] New post 01 May 2012, 09:14
amitbehera wrote:
What is wrong with option 'E' ? Could anyone help?? :?


it in E does not have a clear antecedent.. it cannot refer to humans
_________________

Encourage me by pressing the KUDOS if you find my post to be helpful.



Help me win "The One Thing You Wish You Knew - GMAT Club Contest"
the-one-thing-you-wish-you-knew-gmat-club-contest-140358.html#p1130989

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 47
GMAT 1: 680 Q45 V38
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 7

Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in [#permalink] New post 01 May 2012, 13:41
Excellent explanation egmat. Many thanks.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
Posts: 313
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 20

Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in [#permalink] New post 02 May 2012, 01:51
egmat wrote:
Hi All,

Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he also won the loyalty of its citizens: the invading Danes were well aware of this weakness and used it to their advantage in 893.

Image

Since the meaning of the sentence is easy to understand let’s begin the POE. We will identify the errors in the sentence through POE itself.

Choice A: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he. Incorrect. This choice is incorrect because the verb “did not mean” does not have a subject and that leads to fragment.

Choice B: The fact that King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he had. Correct. In this choice, verb “did not mean” has a subject “the fact” and that fact is that King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886.

Choice C: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he. Incorrect. Pronoun “it” in this choice is referring to the entire preceding. This is incorrect because a pronoun cannot refer to anything but a noun or another pronoun.

Choice D: The fact that King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean that he. Incorrect. There are two errors here.
1. Subject “The fact” does not have a verb and hence we have a fragment here.
2. Pronoun “it” is again referring to the entire preceding clause.

Choice E: Just because King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he. Incorrect. Pronoun “it” is again referring to the entire preceding clause.

PS: Notice that the chronology of the actions in this sentence is very clear. Mention of the specific years when the actions took place establish the sequence clearly. Still the use of past perfect is preferable here because the sentence says "the fact did not mean". If it said "the fact does not mean", then we could easily do with the simple past tense.

Image

1. When the sequence of the events is established by obvious markers, use of past perfect tense becomes optional.
2. Pronoun can only refer to a noun or another pronoun.
3. Every clause, independent or dependent must have subject-verb pair. Absence of any of the two leads to fragment error.

Hope this helps.

Thanks.
Shraddha



Kudos for the explanation Shraddha ..
I have one question. What does the it refer to in the second portion:

Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he also won the loyalty of its citizens: the invading Danes were well aware of this weakness and used itto their advantage in 893.

(A) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he
(B) The fact that King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he had
(C) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he
(D) The fact that King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean that he
(E) Just because King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he
Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1792
Followers: 1276

Kudos [?]: 3596 [1] , given: 185

Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in [#permalink] New post 02 May 2012, 04:43
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
rohitgoel15 wrote:

Kudos for the explanation Shraddha ..
I have one question. What does the it refer to in the second portion:

Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he also won the loyalty of its citizens: the invading Danes were well aware of this weakness and used itto their advantage in 893.

(A) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he
(B) The fact that King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he had
(C) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he
(D) The fact that King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean that he
(E) Just because King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he


Thanks for the Kudos.
The possessive "its" refers to "London" in this sentence. Citizens belong only a to country and there is just one country mentioned in the sentence before "its". Now, do not get confused to see a possessive pronoun referring to a non-possessive noun. It is absolutely fine for a possessive pronoun to refer to a non-possessive noun. However, a possessive noun cannot be referred to by a non-possessive pronoun.
For example, we cannot say: Lisa's cat is very pretty and she takes very good care of it.
In this sentence, non-possessive "she" cannot be used for possessive Lisa's.

Hope this helps.
Shraddha
_________________

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeT9_Wr0DlI&feature=youtu.be

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
Posts: 313
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 20

Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in [#permalink] New post 02 May 2012, 04:46
Thanks again Shraddha. But in the questions I am talking of "it". There is no "its".
Expert Post
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1792
Followers: 1276

Kudos [?]: 3596 [0], given: 185

Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in [#permalink] New post 02 May 2012, 04:55
Expert's post
Hi Rohit,
My bad. I thought you asked about the possessive "its" in the first part of the sentence.
"it" in the second part of the sentence is referring to "weakness".

Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he also won the loyalty of its citizens: the invading Danes were well aware of this weakness and used it to their advantage in 893.

The Danes were aware of this weakness that King Alfred had not won the loyalty of the citizen. So the Danes used that weakness to their advantage in 893.

Hope this helps.
Shraddha
_________________

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeT9_Wr0DlI&feature=youtu.be

Current Student
avatar
Joined: 25 Dec 2012
Posts: 58
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Sustainability
Schools: Fisher '16 (M)
GPA: 4
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 6

Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in [#permalink] New post 05 Apr 2013, 06:10
egmat wrote:
Hi Rohit,
My bad. I thought you asked about the possessive "its" in the first part of the sentence.
"it" in the second part of the sentence is referring to "weakness".

Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he also won the loyalty of its citizens: the invading Danes were well aware of this weakness and used it to their advantage in 893.

The Danes were aware of this weakness that King Alfred had not won the loyalty of the citizen. So the Danes used that weakness to their advantage in 893.

Hope this helps.
Shraddha


Hi Shraddha,
The fact that King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he had

I have two questions in regards to tenses.
1) I thought that Alfred occupied (had before verb occupied) first and then fortified in the the year 886
2) he had occupied and he had -also- won - using two past perfect sentence within the same sentence .

he had jogged and ran in the morning.
Does this refer to two different actions or two simultaneous actions ?

Thanks in advance.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 1100
Location: United States
Followers: 127

Kudos [?]: 1313 [0], given: 120

Premium Member
Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in [#permalink] New post 05 Apr 2013, 13:45
If you don't mind, lemme jump in.

vigneshceg wrote:
I have two questions in regards to tenses.
1) I thought that Alfred occupied (had before verb occupied) first and then fortified in the the year 886


You're correct. Yet both verbs are used in past perfect. The reason is that the author wants to emphasize the time sequence, so he used past perfect. Otherwise, we stick to the simple past.

Quote:
2) he had occupied and he had -also- won - using two past perfect sentence within the same sentence.


No, the author wants to say "the fact that X did not mean Y", the clause Y does not reflex the tense sequence from the previous clause X. Because there's "he", so the clause Y is different from the previous clause X. (if YES, we should eliminate "he")

Quote:
he had jogged and ran in the morning.
Does this refer to two different actions or two simultaneous actions ?


Please be noted that two different actions can happen simultaneously. e.g. he was talking while running. "Talk" and "run" are different actions, but happen simultaneously.
As far as I know, your question is: can one subject do two different actions at the same time (simultaneously)?. It depends on the context.

I think your sentence is just a report and also there is no specific time needed to be emphasized, so Past Perfect tense is unnecessary. Although your sentence reflexes two sequence actions, we just need one tense, rather than two different tenses.

____________________________
Please kudo if my post helps!
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMV Chief of Design.

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 17 Jan 2013
Posts: 37
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 67

Re: SCV: King Alfred [#permalink] New post 07 Apr 2013, 05:21
nevergiveup wrote:
ritula wrote:
Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he also won the loyalty of its citizens: the invading Danes were well aware of this weakness and used it to their advantage in 893.

(A) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he
(B) The fact that King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he had
(C) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he
(D) The fact that King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean that he
(E) Just because King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he


I am going to try to use the split and resplit method I just studied from manhattan gmat.

First split, the action happened in 886 is before the past action in 893; therefore, past perfect is needed. So eliminate A, C, and D.

Second split, it does not have clear referent. So eliminate C, D, and E

The correct answer should be B. Total time used to answer this question 30secs.



I agree to what you are trying to say.. but do we need to have HAD in the latter half of the statement as well??
1 KUDOS received
GMAT Pill Representative
User avatar
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 346
Schools: LBS '14 (A)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Followers: 138

Kudos [?]: 185 [1] , given: 4

Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in [#permalink] New post 07 Apr 2013, 08:33
1
This post received
KUDOS
Hi, yes you do need the second 'had'

The main sentence is the second part, after the colon.

The underlined section is all prior to the comma and is referring to that later action. So everything in that section happened before the main part of the sentence, so all needs the 'had'

Clear?
_________________

Former GMAT Pill student, now on staff. Used GMATPILL OG 12 and nothing else: 770 (48,48) & 6.0



... and more

Current Student
avatar
Joined: 25 Dec 2012
Posts: 58
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Sustainability
Schools: Fisher '16 (M)
GPA: 4
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 6

Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in [#permalink] New post 07 Apr 2013, 22:46
plumber250 wrote:
Hi, yes you do need the second 'had'

The main sentence is the second part, after the colon.

The underlined section is all prior to the comma and is referring to that later action. So everything in that section happened before the main part of the sentence, so all needs the 'had'

Clear?


Hi,
I`m still confused. Is it possible for you to break the sentence on lines of timeline ?
Is it possible for you to provide a simple sentence with two hads used ?
GMAT Pill Representative
User avatar
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 346
Schools: LBS '14 (A)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Followers: 138

Kudos [?]: 185 [0], given: 4

Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in [#permalink] New post 07 Apr 2013, 23:36
OK, Here is the correct answer in full:

The fact that King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he had also won the loyalty of its citizens: the invading Danes were well aware of this weakness and used it to their advantage in 893.

If you split it down, it is essentially saying:

Because this:

King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he had also won the loyalty of its citizens

Happened

This then happened afterwards:

the invading Danes were well aware of this weakness and used it to their advantage in 893

So every thing that happened first needs to be shown to be further in the past than the stuff that happened second.
_________________

Former GMAT Pill student, now on staff. Used GMATPILL OG 12 and nothing else: 770 (48,48) & 6.0



... and more

SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 2012
Followers: 266

Kudos [?]: 59 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in [#permalink] New post 03 May 2014, 16:30
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in   [#permalink] 03 May 2014, 16:30
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in tarek99 3 21 Jan 2008, 03:31
Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in Fig 2 23 Aug 2006, 00:16
Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in beyondinfinity 14 22 Jun 2006, 12:35
Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in mahesh004 0 17 Jun 2006, 19:45
Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in GMATT73 11 28 Jan 2006, 22:30
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 35 posts ] 



GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.