Past Perfect is not needed here - A and D are out

Usage of 'where' is incorrect in C.

Between B and E:
B) In which Homo Erectus still survived in areas inhabited by Homo Sapiens - Correct
E) When Homo Erectus still survived in areas that were then Homo Sapiens’ - Incorrect - Changes meaning. Also 'in which' seems to be more appropriate here than 'when'.

Answer: B

in choice E, "Sapien's area" dose not mean "inhabited by Sapien". meaning is changed. E is gone.

HI GMATNinja, generis, GMATGuruNY , MentorTutoring

Why is in which more appropriate than when?

Isn't when modifying era(time)?
_________________

Solution

Credit: http://www.gmatfree.com/module-68/the-s ... lanation=1

Creating a filter: in this question, the construction "in which" may stand out. The answer choices show that "in which" and "when" are alternatives we must choose between. Both phrases, "in which" and "when," convey meaning accurately here. More of a problem is the phrase "in then Homo Sapiens' inhabited areas," an awkward string of words.

Applying the filter: (B) looks better and clear. Choice (C) has strange phrasing that leaves us uncertain whether the two groups are in the same area, as the sentence intends to say. Choice (D) has the same problem as (A). Choice (E) distorts the meaning of the sentence; the intended meaning isn't that any areas belonged to Homo Sapiens; we're talking about cohabitation. The correct answer is (B).

had - present perfect tense is used when there are two related events in the past and the sequencing is not clear.

(A) in which Homo Erectus had still survived in then Homo Sapiens’ inhabited areas - Is there any other related event in the past for which we require had? No.
(B) in which Homo Erectus still survived in areas inhabited by Homo Sapiens - Looks good, lets keep it and move on to find a better answer if possible.
(C) when Homo Erectus still survived where there were areas inhabited by Homo Sapiens - "still survived"? We are talking about event that's over in the past.
(D) when Homo Erectus had still survived in current Homo Sapiens areas - again, incorrect usage of had.
(E) when Homo Erectus still survived in areas that were then Homo Sapiens’ - Still survived again incorrect, that were then Homo Sapiens' is also incorrect because out intended meaning is that areas were always inhabited by Homo Sapiens, not only then.

Hence, B wins.

if we want to use had done, we need "did" or "have done", both of which show a part action or an action beginning in the past. but this past action must be in time sequence logically with the action presented by had done. appearance of an action presented by "did" or "have done" dose not guarantee the correct usage of "had done". this is a hard point of usage of had done.

we can not use "had survived " here because the action "survived' has no time relation with '"have led". these two actions are not in sequence of time.

second error
area of "homo" is not mean "area inhabited by Homo".
choice a and e are wrong
look at choice C
when Homo Erectus still survived where there were areas inhabited by Homo Sapiens - "still survived"? We are talking about event that's over in the past.

"survive where there were areas inhabited by Homo" mean that the large place in which they survived contains smaller areas which are inhabited by Homo. this meaning is different from the meaning that Erectus survive in area inhabited by Homo.

choice c is wrong

Could you please explain why 'where' is not correct here? :/

Option C:

when Homo Erectus still survived where there were areas inhabited by Homo Sapiens

'where' is wrong because the intended meaning should be like this:

when Homo Erectus still survived in areas inhabited by Homo Sapiens

When use "era" or "timeline" its better to use "In which" instead " when"

When is used while we refer to a specific date
In which is used while we refer to a duration.

Isn't "when" is correct in referring to the time with the word "era"

This question is tricky as it makes you think we are dealing with a time frame because of the presence of 'ERA' but it is actually a situation in a time frame.

Hence we would go with in which instead of when.

Eliminate C,D and E.

coming to A and B

A - 1. past perfect is not needed here and secondly the possessive noun is not correct here as these areas were not permanently claimed by Homo Sapiens.

Hence B

Hello, NandishSS. To keep matters simple, think of when as referring to a specific point in time. An example is in the sentence, He was working on solving a problem when the fire alarm went off. We understand that there was an instantaneous action that interrupted the first activity. (The fire alarm did not go off more than once.) Meanwhile, in which can be used interchangeably with during which, and it is used to refer to the occurrence of something throughout a period of time. Using the same shell of a sentence as before, we could say, He was working on solving a problem at a time in which the fire alarm was going off. This sentence conveys that the alarm was ringing for an extended period of time (during which someone was working on solving a problem).

In the sentence at hand, an era, despite referring, perhaps, to a specific period along the timeline of human history, spans more than a moment, and the sentence needs to express the notion that Homo Sapiens and Homo Erectus had not, in fact, coexisted during or throughout any era in history, based on archeological investigations.

I hope that helps. If you have further questions, feel free to ask. Thank you for calling my attention to the question.

- Andrew

Investigations along the Solo river in Indonesia have led some archeologists to debunk the idea of an era in which Homo Erectus had still survived in then Homo Sapiens’ inhabited areas.

Meaning Analysis: Some investigations were carried out along the Solo river in Indonesia. These investigations helped some archeologists to clarify a myth - Homo Erectus survived in areas inhabited by Homo Sapiens.

Sentence Structure:
Investigations (plural subject)
along the Solo river in Indonesia (modifier modifying "investigations")
have led (plural verb)
some archeologists to debunk the idea of an era (object of the sentence)
in which (modifier modifying "era")
Homo Erectus (subject)
had still survived (verb)
in then Homo Sapiens’ inhabited areas. (information about Homo Eructus' survival)


There is a clear Verb-Tense issue out here. The past perfect tense "had survived" is not needed since we aren't showing any sequence of two actions. Simple past tense "survived" would be correct.

Moreover, "in then Homo Sapiens’ inhabited areas" isn't the best way to convey the intended meaning.


Correct.

Note:- We can use "when" or "in which" to modify "era"


Again, this sentence structure of this choice makes this choice incorrect. This sentence isn't the best way to convey the intended idea.


Use of Past perfect tense is incorrect.


Again, not the best way to convey the intended idea.

Learning - "when" is used to modify all time indicator words. But there are words that can also be modified in other ways. In this case, "era" can very well be modified by "in which" why? Because it is "in" the era that something takes place.

I believe all the answer choices do not really have any grammar error. But the sentence structure makes the choices unfit. We need to select a choice that conveys the intended meaning using
(1) correct grammar
(2) crystal clear sentence structure
(3) avoids redundancy and unwanted usage of extra words.

Again, this is just what I believe

Hi IanStewart

Could you please help with this question?




Could you please check my reasoning below?

(A) is wrong because a combination of "Past Perfect" and "still": "Past Perfect" means a already stopped action, whereas "still" means a continuous action. Hence, "Past Perfect" and "still" contradict each other.




(B) shows an overlapping in terms of two events: "Homo Erectus" survived or lived in areas, where "Homo Sapiens" also lived.




1) there is a meaning change: (E) does not show "Homo Erectus" and "Homo Sapiens" lived in different time periods.

2) "areas that were then Homo Sapiens’" ----> This structure seems grammatically incorrect. Could you please explain whether this structure is grammatically wrong?

Thank you very much beforehand!

That phrase is awkward, but it isn't technically wrong as far as I can tell. But it doesn't convey the correct meaning here. The apostrophe in answers A and E both indicate that the Homo Sapiens owned the land in some sense. They didn't; they just lived on it. Regardless of grammar though, answer B describes things in a simple and direct way, and every other answer either has a fundamental meaning error (as you point out, past perfect is incorrect here) or has convoluted and confusing wording, so B is easily the best choice.

I don't agree with earlier posts that there is a meaningful distinction to draw between "when" and "in which" in this context.
_________________