daagh wrote:
According to a study published by Dr. Myrna Weissman, only one percent of Americans born before 1905 had suffered major depression by the age of seventy-five; of those born since 1955, six percent had become depressed by age twenty-four.
(A) only one percent of Americans born before 1905 had suffered major depression by the age of seventy-five; of those born since 1955, six percent had become depressed by age twenty-four
(B) only one percent of Americans born before 1905 suffer major depression by the age of seventy-five; if they are born since 1955, six percent become depressed by age twenty-four
(C) of Americans born before 1905, only one percent of them have suffered major depression by age seventy-five, but six percent of those born since 1955 do by the age of twenty-four
(D) major depression is suffered by the age of seventy-five by only one percent of Americans born before 1905, and by age twenty-four by the six percent born since 1955
(E) Americans born before 1905 suffer major depression by the age of seventy-five only one percent of the time, but six percent of those born since 1955 did so by age twenty-four
This is a finding of a study that specifically deals with the phenomenon of mental depression in different age groups, one in the deep past and another in the near past. However, both of them occurred and ended in the past. In such a context, we are not supposed to assume that they are both universal happenings or daily chores to describe them either in the present tense or the present perfect. On this score alone, we can dispense with B, C, D, and E.
However, is it correct to use past perfect for both events as in A? Obviously, we are tempted to say that the youngsters' depression is the later one and we should, therefore, use a simple past. Unfortunately not so. Add 75 to 1905 and it is 1980. Add 24 to 1955 and it is 1979, around the same time as 1980. In this case, we could use simple past for both the events provided there is no third event that is the last in the passage.
Nevertheless, the passage says that there is a third event that occurred later i.e., the researcher's publication that was distinctly later than the prior two events. Hence, we can use past perfect for both those earlier events.
Sir, I don't think the use of past perfect is really justified here. Although I got this question correct, thanks to the 4 rest options that are obviously hot garbage.
If my study is correct, the use the past perfect must meet 2 prerequisites, the first of which is already well known by almost everyone here on the forum:
#1, the event with which past perfect used must happen in the past of another event in the past, again this is super well known, and we need no further discussion here.
#2, the later event should have some bearing with the previous one. Now what does this mean? consider below examples:
- Dinosaurs [had been dominating] the biological chronology for over 100 million years, but the animal [vanished] in a sudden catastrophe 65 million years ago. - this is correct
- Timmy [learned] about the war in which much of Europe [had been reduced] to rubble. - This is definitely incorrect and I can clearly remember an official question that is almost analgous to this exmaple.
If you look deep into these examples you will notice the subtle difference: Sure Timmy's leaning happened after the war, but hey, Timmy's learning has not bearing on the war whatsoever!!! It does not matter whether Timmy learned about the war, that war just happened and has 0 relationship with Timmy's learning.
But for dinosaurs, their vanishing is somehow linked to their "over 100 million years" of dominance, so the use of past perfect is justified.
Please correct me if I am wrong, the above was learnt from Ron's sessions.