Hello talismaaniac,

I know it sounds a bit complicated that past perfect tense can only be used for the earlier related past event.

However, it is not that difficult to figure out if the events presents in a sentence are related or not.

While analyzing the events, we must figure out if the earlier past action has any bearing/effect on the latter past action, that is, if two actions are connected any which way. Following are some situations of related events:

i. Cause-and-Effect relations hip between the two events make them related.
ii. For the sake of clear sequencing to express the correct meaning, past perfect tense is used.


Let's begin with some simple examples here.

1. John learned last week that Eutopia, a little-known country, had gotten its independence in 1970.

Use of past-perfect tense had gotten in the above-mentioned sentence is incorrect because the two events are not related.

Eutopia got its independence in 1970. However, John got to know about this fact only last week. But event of his knowledge does not affect the fact when Eutopia got independence. That event took place in 1970 irrespective of John's knowledge.

Hence the correct version of sentence 1. is: John learned last week that Eutopia, a little-known country, had gotten its independence in 1970.


2. Researchers found evidence that the Earth had undergone major changes in the last ice age.

Once again, use of past-perfect tense had undergone in the above-mentioned sentence is incorrect because the two events are not related.

No matter when the researchers found the evidence, the changes took place in the last age irrespective of researcher's knowledge. The changes did not depend upon the event of researchers finding the evidence.

So, the correct version of the sentence is: Researchers found evidence that the Earth underwent major changes in the last ice age.

Now let's evaluate those official sentences that use past perfect tense correctly.


1. Dressed as a man and using the name Robert Shurtleff, Deborah Sampson, the first woman to draw a soldier's pension, joined the Continental Army in 1782 at the age of 22, was injured three times, and was discharged in 1783 because she had become too ill to serve.

In the above-mentioned sentence, the two events in bold are related to each other because one event led to the other (cause-and-effect). Hence, use of past perfect tense is correct in this sentence.



2. Government officials announced that restrictions on the use of water would continue because no appreciable increase in the level of the river had resulted from the intermittent showers that had fallen throughout the area the day before.

Per the above-mentioned sentence, it is necessary to use past perfect tense had resulted to clarify the sequence of events. Use of past perfect tense had resulted makes it clear that the announcement took place only after the water level in the river had not increased to a satisfactory level.

Use of had fallen is related to the event had resulted because it is the intermittent showers because of which the water level did not increase.


So, all we need to do is just spend some time with the original sentence to understand the context and intended meaning of the sentence so that we ascertain if the events mentioned in the sentence are related in any way.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________

B is the only correct one.

A uses wrong past perfet tense

C shouldn't be aired first but first aired

D same problem as C

E aired on radio first is not correct form

B

||ism: ... in the 1920's....in the 1930's.... B and C remain.

Problems with "first" and "moving" in C.
_________________

how do we know that we need parallel structure for the two clauses in this sentence? (Although early ..........) and (they had........shows)

@teal

Please read this from the given link; it is a rule that we do not use two different voices in sentences containing two clauses that are joined by a conjunction. I have also quoted the relevant part relating to voices.
HTH


_________________

The answer I chose was B:

A. It does not make sense to use "had moved" in the past perfect tense because it logically does not make sense and it is not parallel to "were first aired." Also, "of the 1930s" should be "in the 1930s."

B. This sentence is correct because "were aired and were moved" are parallel and they logically make sense given the dates. Also, "in the 1920s and in the 1930s" are parallel.

C. The verb-ing modifier seems to modify the first clause, but that doesn't really make sense. This modifier also creates a sentence fragment.

D. "They moved" is incorrect. It seems to say that they voluntarily moved to the daytime hours when in fact they were "were moved." There is a slight logical difference here. Also, "in the 1920s and in the 1930s" should be used.

E. The verbs are not parallel. Also, it sounds like the soap operas were moved to the 1930s? This does not make any sense at all.

The intended meaning for the sentence is that in the 1920's was when the early soap operas were first aired on evening radio. This doesn't mean that the early soap operas aired first on evening radio. These are two different things. Thus, we eliminate (C) and (D).

On the verb side, the early soap opera cannot air itself. The usage of "aired" over "were aired" makes the "early soap opera" the doer of the action which is wrong. Thus, we eliminate (E). For the same reason, we also eliminate (A) with its active usage of "moved."

Answer: A

My understanding is that if there are multiple event , we need to use 'had' or past perfect tense to show sequence clearly. is this understanding correct ?

If yes,
why it does not applicable in current case ( is it because 1920 & 1930 have already done this job ?)
if no,
I will have to dig deeper in some grammar books to clarify my understanding...

Dear Mike

Since a long time I am carrying this perception that in subordinate clause and main clause voice parallelism is necessary. I am aware that we can keep different voices in independent clause joined by coordinating conjunction until such usage make sense.

Today I saw a question Q86-OG11, in which this concept is specifically tested.

Although early soap operas were first aired on evening radio in the 1920's, they had moved to the daytime hours of the 1930's when the evening schedule became crowded with comedians and variety shows.

(A) were first aired on evening radio in the 1920's, they had moved to the daytime hours of the 1930's
(B) were first aired on evening radio in the 1920's, they were moved to the daytime hours in the 1930's
(C) were aired first on evening radio in the 1920's, moving to the daytime hours in the 1930's
(D) were aired first in the evening on 1920's radio, they moved to the daytime hours of the 1930's
(E) aired on evening radio first in the 1920's, they were moved to the 1930's in the daytime hours

I want to know how much strict is this criterion from GMAT's perspective or how far we can stretch this concept ? Could you please give some valid examples in which we can keep different voices in subordinate and main clause such as in if..., then or Although ..., main clause or any OG problem.

Thanks & Regards,
Piyush

Dear Piyush,
I'm happy to help.

I don't think voice parallelism is the issue here. I don't think that's ever an issue. Verbs in parallel do not have to match in tense, in voice, in mood, etc.

I think the issue in this particular question is one of logic. Think about it. Soap operas may be lively and entertaining, but they are not self-aware entities to which we can impute independent intention and rational capacities. They do not actually "move" as self-moving actors. Someone (a network, an executive, etc.) has to move them. The choice of the passive in the second clause is dictated by the logic of the situation, not by some extra constraints on Parallelism.

Does this make sense?
Mike
_________________

I have seen in gmat questions that when one event takes place before another of the past, it is generally shown by "had" - past perfect is used.
There are plenty of questions in OG 12. For instance,
Q19. The Iroquois were primarily planters, although they supplemented their cultivation of maize, squash, and beans with fishing and hunting --- because same time, same tense used. simple past and simple past
Q3. Although various 18th and 19th century American poets had professed an interest in Native American poetry and had pretended to imitate Native American forms in their own works, it was not until almost 1900 that scholars and critics seriously began studying traditional Native American poetry in native languages.
Here, the OG states that past perfect had professed and had pretended designate a time (18th & 19th C) earlier than simple past tense so the second clause, explaining what happened around 1900, must use the past tense, and so it uses "began studying"
Q86. The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, which increased 5% during first 3 months of this year after they fell over the last 2 years... (here i have changed it to they)
The above underlined portion is incorrect because it fails to distinguish between the two sequentially ordered indicators, wherein the first indicator (increase of 5%) occurred after the indicator mentioned next (fell over the last 2 years)
Now, the correct option that clearly depicts the sequence of events is which have increased 5% during the first 3 months of this year after falling over the last 2 years.
Okay , the sentence seems better to me, but then I could not grasp what was wrong in my modified version, the original option (changed from it to they).


Now, coming to the present question, when soap operas were first aired in 1920s, the event of moving to the daytime hours happens after that in the 1930s. This creates a divide in the two timeframes. Accordingly, had been first aired in 1920s must be used...
Therefore, to me, the correct answer must be

Although early soap operas had / had been first aired on evening radio in the 1920's, they were moved to the daytime hours in the 1930's when the evening schedule became crowded with comedians and variety shows.


Even though this option doesnt exist, I do not understand why same tense can be used to modify two events taking place in different times with say approx 10 years between them.
Further, had / had been is what I could think.

Please clarify someone.

Hello talismaaniac,

I will be glad to help you with this one.

Past perfect tense is used to present sequencing between two past events. The past event that took place before the other past event is written in past perfect tense and the latter event in simple future future tense.

However, sequencing can be established with the usage of past perfect tense only when the two past events are related in some way. If the two past events are not related, then past perfect tense is not used for the earlier event.


Although early soap operas were first aired on evening radio in the 1920's, they had moved to the daytime hours of the 1930's when the evening schedule became crowded with comedians and variety shows.

In the above-mentioned official sentence, the two events - the first opera was aired and later they moved - are not related in any way. These are two independent actions that took place at two different times. This is the reason why use of past perfect tense had moved is incorrect in the context of this sentence.

Both the events must be written in simple past tense verbs as we see in the correct answer choice.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________

Thanks! So you mean that the usage of the participle depends upon whether the events are dependent or independent. hmmm.. I get this a little. However, now I will have to start forming an idea about how to ascertain whether there is any relation between the two or not! Phew

Hi egmat,
A few errors in your posts above have been highlighted in yellow.

John learned last week that Eutopia, a little-known country, got its independence in 1970.

Past perfect tense is used to present sequencing between two past events. The past event that took place before the other past event is written in past perfect tense and the latter event in simple past tense.
_________________

Hi EGMAT team,
while solving this question, I realized it is one of those exceptions where Active Voice can be parallel to Passive voice.
I chose D in this context. C1-passive, C2-Active.
Even though it has prepositional phrase error of 'aired in', I found D to exhibit parallelism. Please let me know where I did mistake

Hi egmat,

Please could you help me understand if there is any difference between


(A) were first aired on evening radio in the 1920's, they had moved to the daytime hours of the 1930's

(B) were first aired on evening radio in the 1920's, they were moved to the daytime hours in the 1930's

Hi Hoozan,

Yes, we need in, because it goes with moved (meaning call). That is, it tells us when they were moved. Read it like this:
1. They were moved to X in the 1930s.

instead of
2. They were moved to X of the 1930s.
_________________

First of all i noticed the preposition used on the sentence ON in THE EVENING radio. is the EVENING rADIO is the subject or the part of the day for what purpose is it used in the sentence
.

Request Expert Reply-->
Hello Experts,
Could you clarify these 2 versions? Is there any difference in this 2 versions you think?

Although early soap operas were first aired on evening radio in the 1920's, they were moved to the daytime hours in the 1930's when the evening schedule became crowded with comedians and variety shows.

Although early soap operas were aired first on evening radio in the 1920's, they were moved to the daytime hours in the 1930's when the evening schedule became crowded with comedians and variety shows.