Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Hong Hu - We expect an explanation from experts like you:) and not just agreement on a Letter.
:oops: I evaded the explanation part because I didn't know how to explain ... I think when you see "in 1989" that almost always mean you need to use past tense, because it is refering to a specific time in the past, not a duration. Isn't it right? Also, how can you win an election after it is over? You win a race when you run it, but you get your medals after you have won it. I ate an apple as a desert when I went to dinner yesterday. Eating the apple is part of the dinner, not after the dinner was over.
I was between A and D. Nice explanation, Honghu.
lets wait for Paul's.
Last edited by MA on 12 Apr 2005, 20:26, edited 1 time in total.
hi, i think its A because there are two things happening in the past and one has been completed and then other got completed.It will be better if someone experience provides with a correct answer
No, A is illegal in this case. By using 'have been', you suggest that all along the wine price has been competitive. If that's the case, why lower it ?? Having two events in the past does not mean you have to use perfect tenses. You still need to look at what the sentence wants to tell us before deciding if a simple tense is good enough, or we need to use a perfect tense.
D should be right because past perfect tense is about an action that was accomplished and finished in the past.
Why would you not use past perfect here? Because the running is happening at the same time period as the winning; in 1968. I'll give you two examples:
eg I ran a lot in the summer of 1969 and I eventually won a marathon. --> This is two ind. clauses linked by conjunction "and" describing two things that both happened in 1969
eg I had run a lot until the summer of 1969, time at which I eventually broke my ankle. --> this demonstrate two sequences of event 1) X used to run a lot in the past UNTIL 2) he broke an ankle that year(but remember that he stopped running after then)
Getting back to the original question, we have NOT a sequence of events but rather, a description of two events that both happened in 1968 without any event preceding another one.