The first United States Solicitor General, Benjamin H.

I think the last option should read

(E) was born in 1832 and served in the Grand administration from 1874 to 1876. Earlier in his life, Bristow served as a lieutenant colonel in the 25th Kentucky fanny[/quote]

Then option E is the right answer. Assuming option E has the changes above,

We would use the past perfect tense if we need to clearly establish a sequence of events which otherwise would be unclear/non obvious in the sentence.

ex: I had left the party when the murder happened.

This indicates that the action -- leaving the party happened before the murder. The "had left" past perfect tense is critical in establishing this sequence.

In the given sentence since timelines are explicitly stated, the sequence of events are very obvious. There is no need to use the past perfect tense. The preference would be to use simple past.

Looking at the options:

We can quickly eliminate A,B and D as they use "had served" in one format or the other. We are left with C and E.

Sentence C can be a run on without the "was" after the comma. So we can eliminate C as well. It also uses the "appointee" instead of "served".

Right answer is E.

Strike 1: Verb tense - had is not required as timelines are Already said.
Strike 2: appointee changes meaning

Posted from my mobile device

I have a query. Why is D wrong here? Why we wont be using "Had served" ? is it because its already mentioned "Earlier in his life"? Case of redundancy?

Hi,

D is wrong here, because it uses "had" which is not required here as the time lines are clearly stated in the sentence. Hence simple past tense should be used.

Hope that clears your doubt.
_________________

Had served makes the sentence look like he served as ......before was born.Clearly illogical.
Hence D will be wrong.

To say that the past perfect 'had served' is not required is different from saying from 'had served' is wrong. At best, one has the option not to use the past perfect but using the past perfect is not such a blatant error as to render it unfit; There are so many instances in official examples, where the past perfect is considered good enough, in spite of a clearly demarcated timeline. I would feel the difference between the choices is not water-tight'.
_________________

I agree that the use of past perfect in D is not definitively wrong. Since "Earlier in his life" clearly tells us we are talking about the period before his service in the Grant (not Grand!) administration, the past perfect is justified, even if it isn't really needed.

However, a real SC would never be two sentences. Also, you should change the last word of E, which seems to be referring to private parts(!) rather than the military.
_________________

The first United States Solicitor General, Benjamin H. Bristow born in 1832 and served in the Grant administration from 1874 to 1876. Earlier in his life, Bristow had served as a lieutenant colonel in the 25th Kentucky Infantry.

(D) was born in 1832 and served in the Grand administration from 1874 to 1876. Earlier in his life, Bristow had served as a lieutenant colonel in the 25th Kentucky Infantry
--> There is only one clause in the second sentence "Earlier in his life, Bristow..." ---> The use of PAST PERFECT is MEANINGLESS.

(E) was born in 1832 and served in the Grand administration from 1874 to 1876. Earlier in his life, Bristow served as a lieutenant colonel in the 25th Kentucky Infantry
_________________

I completely agree with you; the past perfect is not necessary, but it is not wrong. I have not found in any dictionary the word fanny as a synonym of infantry. We must remember that sentences in the GMAT are formal, so, even if the word fanny were some kind of jargon, it would still be wrong.
I would say that the best choice is D .
I would like to comment that this problem has two sentences -it uses a full stop- so it is not a GMAT problem.
_________________

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

There are two main problems with this sentence.

(1) The subject (the first United States Solicitor General) does not have a verb.

(2) The past perfect tense had served is wrong as the phrase earlier in his life makes it clear that his service as a lieutenant occurred before his service as solicitor general. Consequently, the past perfect tense is not needed to differentiate the timing of the two events in the past.

A. the subject (the first United States Solicitor General) does not have a verb

B. the past perfect tense had served is wrong as it conveys the idea that his service in the Grant administration occurred before he was born

C. the subject (the first United States Solicitor General) does not have a verb

D. the past perfect tense had served is wrong as the phrase earlier in his life makes it clear that his service as a lieutenant occurred before his service as solicitor general

E. the past perfect tense is not used; the subject (the first United States Solicitor General) has a verb
_________________

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.
_________________