In the 1970’s an elite preschool in New York City had approximately 15

In the 1970’s an elite preschool in New York City had approximately 150 applications per year, and by the 1990’s, this number rose to 3,000.

I think, 'had' is required here. This 'had' is not helpful in telling the sequence. We easily know by the Years that what happened first. Instead, tells that the school had .. no. of applications.
We can eliminate A, D. . . . Left with B, C and E.
C is out because it uses 'amount'. . . . We left with B and E. B is concise and I choose 'B'

A. this number rose -
B. the number had risen -
C. the amount had risen -
D. this number was raised -
E. the number of applications had risen -

Option B
A) this number seems to be pointing to 1990 here. rose to doesnt seem to fit here.
B) had risen is perfect.
C) Amount: number of applications is not an amount. It is a count.
D) Nobody deliberately raised this number. So was raised is not the right usage.
E) Wordy, repeated words.

The number of 150 in the 70's is being compared to the number of 3000 by the 90's. When time line is specified, it is normal to mention the end of the tenure in the past perfect. If it were to have happened to day, we would normally say the number 'has risen'. When we convert it to indirect speech, the verbal phrase 'has risen' becomes 'had risen'.
, according to an explanation given by Ron.
The answer is therefore B

A is correct in my view.

We have two events that occurred in the past. These two events are time-stamped, hence there is no ambiguity as to which occurs first or later. There is, therefore, no need to use the past perfect tense in this context. The simple past tense is adequate. Based on this, we can eliminate B, C, and E.
Between A and D, D has an illogical meaning. The use of was raised in D suggests that someone raised the number of applicants, and this is illogical. The school cannot raise the number of applications they receive. We can discard D and be left with A as the correct answer.

In the 1970’s an elite preschool in New York City had approximately 150 applications per year, and by the 1990’s, this number rose to 3,000.

A. this number rose

B. the number [of what?] had risen

C. the amount had risen

D. this number was raised

E. the number of applications had risen

In the 1970’s an elite preschool in New York City had approximately 150 applications per year, and by the 1990’s, this number rose to 3,000.
Since the original sentence has two events occurring in span of 20 years, the first, as required, already use past perfect, the second should use simple past.

A. this number rose - CORRECT.

B. the number had risen - WRONG. Both events can't use past perfect.

C. the amount had risen - WRONG. Besides tense, 'amount' is a big no-no because applications are countable.

D. this number was raised - WRONG. Changes meaning as in it(rise) was intentional, which, instead is a gradual process.

E. the number of applications had risen - WRONG. 'The number of applications' is not that an issue but past perfect tense is wrong.

IMO Answer A.

Ans (B)

Ans: B

we clearly need a past perfect tense here as "by 1990's" is used.So, the earlier event is the application number rose before it was 1990. So, only B is correct.

IMO E

The number of applications had risen clearly removes ambiguity and the meaning of the sentence is correct with right comparison.

In options ABCD the comparison is incorrect

Posted from my mobile device

THE FORMATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION HERE IS - “BY X, Y HAS HAPPENED”.

Let us understand what is meant by such a construction – in this case
X = “by the 1990’s, Y = this number rose to 3,000”

• Sometimes, instead of providing two past events, GMAT can test you by providing one past event and another past event marker.
• In such a case, it is common for students to use Simple Past tense because there is only one past event that is evident and they fall in the trap as the other past event doesn’t seem like an event.
• In this case, the phrase “By the 1990s” denotes one past event and “this number rose to 3,000” denotes another past event. Since there are two past events, there is a need to use Past Perfect Tense to clarify the sequence
• Hence, to clarify whether the completion of 1990s happened first, or the number rose first, we need to use the past perfect tense with the main verb.
• Using Simple Past tense in this case is considered incorrect.
• Whenever we see, “by” with an event marker, we should use Past Perfect Tense to clarify the sequence.


Hence Choice B is the correct choice.

Option 'A' should be correct in my opinion . As past event is already mentioned with a had in past perfect , a simple past would suffice for later event.

Posted from my mobile device

I'll leave this here in hope it helps someone - usually when we have a "by" with year or other time period, we use "had" for the sequencing of whatever comes after it.

For example, the sequence here is - (i) by 1990's, (ii) the number had risen

We absolutely need to use past perfect here, so only B and E are remain.

But why not use E? E is the same as B, but further removes any ambiguity by clearly specifying the number of applications is what had risen.

Could someone explain why E is wrong?

I also pick E over B because I think E eliminates ambiguity.
Can anyone help why not E?
Thank you.

Hi souvik101990, GMATNinja,

Can you please help me with option choices B and E? I chose E because E seemed unambiguous.