rakaisraka wrote:
mikemcgarry wrote:
rakaisraka wrote:
Hi Mike , can you please explain option E. Isnt it wrong for tense. AS has been the case earllier. How can we use has been for something which was in past? Thanks
Dear
rakaisraka,
I'm happy to respond.
Here's the full OA, (E):
Push for greater integration of global economy is guided not by complicated philosophical questions about the global fraternity, as has been the case earlier, but by the practical matters of business: cost savings and efficiency.
First of all, the action of the main clause is in the present, and what was "
the case earlier" is about what was true in the past. It would have made absolutely no sense to say "
as is the case earlier"--that would be using the present tense to talk about the past.
Does all this make sense?
Mike
Thanks Mike - I agree that we cant use present tense for something in past, but AS HAS BEEN THE CASE EARLIER is also a present tense. The only difference is that it shows a time period which started in past bt may still be valid. Is this the reason for using AS HAS BEEN? Or this choice is correct because other options are totally wrong?
What would be the correct answer if we had another option like-
Push for greater integration of global economy is guided not by complicated philosophical questions about the global fraternity,
as was the case earlier, but by the practical matters of business: cost savings and efficiency
In this case would this option be better than option E?
Thanks
Dear
rakaisraka,
I'm happy to respond.
The
present perfect tense is tricky: while in some sense it is a "present" tense, its use is usually closest to the simple past tense. In many cases, either the simple past tense or the present perfect tense would be correct in context, and the only different would be subtle implications beyond what the GMAT would test.
In this sentence, both are 100% correct:
1)
as was the case earlier2)
as has been the case earlierAt the level of grammar, both are flawlessly correct, and for the purposes of this question, each is fine. Neither is really better than the other: either could be part of the OA.
In general, the difference is very subtle and, again, not what the GMAT would test. Consider these two sentences:
3)
I saw that movie.
4)
I have seen that movie.
Both are 100% grammatically correct. Both agree on the same empirical fact: my seeing of the movie was at some time in the past. They differ in how they present or interpret that empirical fact. The first, sentence #3, presents it as "
been there, done that!" In other words, the implication is that I saw the movie in the past, and whatever enjoyment I derived from it or impact it had on me is essentially zero now. My entire experience of the movie is in the past, and aside from the factual memory, it plays no meaningful role in my current life. By contrast, sentence #4 implies that even though the viewing of the movie was in the past, in some way, it still remains part of me. Perhaps its influence still acts in my life. Perhaps I still chuckle when I think of the humor in the movie. Perhaps I quote the movie regularly. Perhaps I model myself after one of the characters. The implication of sentence #4 is that the movie is still, in some way, an ongoing presence in my life, even though the literal act of seeing it was in the past. I cannot emphasize enough: distinctions such as these are NOT what the GMAT would ever test.
The subtle implication of using #2, "
has been," in the SC problem is as follows. The older motivation for globalization concerned the "
complicated philosophical questions about the global fraternity," what we might call the moral or spiritual perspective on globalization. While that older motivation is not the main priority any more, it is still in the background at the present time. In other words, even though practical economic concerns now drive globalization, the folks who have moral & spiritual ideals about how global cooperation is a good thing are still participating, and probably are quite excited about this newer economic trend. In that sense, the present perfect is much better choice than the simple past tense: both are grammatically correct, but the present perfect captures the subtle implications of the nature of the dynamics in the modern global market. Yet again, this is more than you would be expected to know, but understand that for these reasons, the present perfect, which appears in the OA, is actually a better choice than the simple past.
Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________
Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test PrepEducation is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)