OFFICIAL EXPLANATIONQuote:
Project SC Butler: Day 121 Sentence Correction (SC1)
Isaac Asimov contracted AIDS from a blood transfusion he received during a triple bypass surgery in 1983; by the time he succumbed to the disease in 1992, the Boston University professor
had introduced three new words to the English language, wrote over 500 books, and won several distinguished writing awards.
A) had introduced three new words to the English language, wrote
B) introduced three new words to the English language, wrote
C) had introduced three new words to the English language, written
D) having introduced three new words to the English language, writing
E) introduced three new words to the English language, written
Some words and phrases indicate a time shift. One such phrase is
By the time X, Y. Verbs must shift to reflect that time shift.
The Y events happen
before the X event.
Write X in simple past tense.
Write Y in past perfect (had verbED).
(This structure can be set in the past or the future. In this question we are taking about the past. The last event in the timeframe that includes "By the time" happened before now.)
By the time he succumbed in 1992, then, signals that events before that moment in 1992 should be depicted in "the past of the past" (past perfect)
Options B, D, and E do not contain any verbs with the structure HAD + past participle (verbED)
Eliminate B, D, and E
• Split #2: parallelismOption A uses
had introduced, [had]
wrote, and [had]
won in a list of three actions
-- there is
no such thing as HAD WROTE
-- the correct participle (verbED) is
written-- parallelism in the list of verbs is violated. When a verb has more than one word [had verbED],
often the verb is "split" and the first part applies to all of the second parts.
Eliminate A
By POE, the
answer is C, which correctly contains three verbs in past perfect tense (see below for parallelism analysis)
• ANALYSISBy the time X, Y is fairly common on the GMAT.
When we see the phrase in a question involving the past, almost without exception,
(1) the Y events come before the X event,
(2) Y events take past perfect, and
(3) the X event takes simple past.
This sentence is a good example of contexts in which we should use past perfect (had verbED) for the earlier (Y) events rather than simple past.
By the time means "when" or "at that time." Asimov's death, X, happened a discrete, defined time.
The X event rendered in
simple past tense creates a "stop right here" marker of something that happened before now. Then we use past perfect to describe the Y events before that marker.
What happened before Asimov's passing is emphasized, an emphasis that is consistent with the tone: "Look at these amazing things that Asimov had accomplished before he passed away."
• mixture of simple past and past perfect?The non-underlined parts that precede the underlined portion contain a lot of information rendered in simple past tense.
-- Asimov
received a blood transfusion in 1983
--
contracted AIDS from that transfusion, and
-- Asimov
succumbed to AIDS (in 1992)
Do not assume anything about these simple past tense verbs, such as "Oh, ALL the verbs should be in past tense."
-- Step back.
Why might the sentence contain a mixture of simple past and past perfect verbs?
-- One good possibility is emphasis: the writer is giving background against which
other events will stand out.
-- Asimov tragically contracted AIDS, true. Is that fact the highlight of the sentence? No. The highlights are what he HAD accomplished by (at) the time of his death.
Four answers contain past perfect tenses. One answer does not. Strategically, that setup is a clue that past perfect is at issue.
What to do? Look for another clue.
by the time he succumbed is the single biggest clue that we should use past perfect to highlight what happened before he passed away.
The first part of the phrase marks off a discrete (non-continuous) point in the past.
By the time X, Y. By the time THIS thing happened (simple past), THOSE things had happened (past perfect).
By the time means
when or
at THIS particular point in time.We have
one moment at which THIS thing happened in simple past tense. (1992: Asimov succumbed to AIDS.)
Before that discrete moment in time there were other events. THOSE things had happened: namely Asimov's introduction of new words, his publication of 500+ books, and his winning of writing awards.
The specific language used in past perfect "announces" that we are speaking about things that happened BEFORE the event later or latest in time.
• Past perfect constructionIf two or more events happen in the past and at least one of them is later in time than the other(s), we use
simple past tense to describe the
later-in-time event, and
past perfect to describe the
events that happened
before that final event.
Past perfect is often described as
the past of the past.
Past perfect, active: HAD/HAVE + past participle (verbED)
Past perfect, passive: HAD/HAVE + been + past participle [not in play in this question]
Requirements? To use past perfect
(1) at least one event
must be rendered in simple past tense (or a time marker alone such as
by last Friday night, and
(2) often NO time sequence words such as
after, before, or
subsequently are present.
-- Past perfect already indicates sequence; GMAC often considers a sequence word redundant.
TimelineThe SIMPLE PAST EVENT?
On a timeline,
by the time he succumbed in 1992 would be
a specific point in time, this way:
long ago_ _|Asimov on the scene========
||1992|| _ _ now
The PAST PERFECT EVENTS?
On a timeline, the three events prior to his death (words introduced, books published, awards won) occur in the highlighted portion:
long ago_ _
|Asimov on the scene========||1992|| _ _ now
• PARALLELISMThree actions are in a
list.In fact, the
comma + and before the last list item, the word WON, tells us that we have a list of three things.
(On the GMAT, the last item in a list always takes the "Oxford" comma before the "and.")
In a list of items, if a verb contains more than one word, we can "split the verb." HAD is written once and carries over to the second part of the verb in all three actions: HAD introduced, [HAD] written, and [HAD] won.
Without the verb split, the sentence would appear this way:
. . . by the time he succumbed to the disease in 1992, [Asimov]
had introduced three new words to the English language,
had written over 500 books, and
had won several distinguished writing awards.
This construction is perfectly grammatical but also wordy—and not likely to be seen on the GMAT.
No option resembles this construction.
In order to cope with the available options, we have to "split the verb." HAD is the first part of the verb. Each of the three past participles (verbED words) is the second part of the split verb.
-- in this kind of list,
either all three options take the first part of the split verb (HAD),
or only the first item in the list takes the first part of the split verb
Correct: had introduced, had written, and had won
Correct: had introduced, written, and won
Wrong: had introduced, had written, and won
Wrong: had introduced, written, and had won
In the non-underlined portion at the end is the word won.
Now we know that the
second element cannot be preceded by HAD because the third element is not preceded by HAD.
(ONLY the first item takes the helping verb, or ALL three take it.)
• THE OPTIONSQuote:
A) ... by the time he succumbed to the disease in 1992, the BU professor had introduced three new words to the English language, wrote over 500 books, and won several writing awards.
•
wrote is simple past tense only. There is no such thing as "had wrote"
• we need "had + past participle (verbED)"
•
wrote is never a past participle
• the past participle of the verb
to write is
written ["had written"]
Quote:
B) ... by the time he succumbed to the disease in 1992, the BU professor introduced three new words to the English language, wrote over 500 books, and won several writing awards.
• the verbs marked in pink are all simple past tense verbs that are parallel but incorrectly used
• "by the time X, Y" signals a situation in which we cannot use simple past tense to depict events that happened before that time. The author uses Asimov's death to mark an end time, but the emphasis is on the things Asimov had done before he died.
When we use "had verbED," we are saying, "Notice all these events that happened
before." We don't attach time markers such as dates because sequence is not the point; the content of the event(s) is the point.
-- A similar incorrect construction (should sound very weird):
By the time they arrived at 8 p.m., they bought a bottle of wine, changed into cocktail party clothes, and produced a document for their demanding project.That sentence is incorrect. It is awkward because it does not follow the time sequence of
By the time X, Y.At the least, the verbs seem scrambled about in time. They finished their project and arrived at the party at the same time?
Option B has the same problem.
Quote:
C) ... by the time he succumbed to the disease in 1992, the BU professor had introduced three new words to the English language, written over 500 books, and won several writing awards
• Correct: had introduced [words], written [books], and won [awards]
Quote:
D) ... by the time he succumbed to the disease in 1992, the BU professor having introduced three new words to the English language, writing over 500 books, and won [???] several writing awards.
• What a disaster. Forget about whether HAD Xed, Yed, and Zed are parallel . . . this sentence is nonsensical.
• the BU professor
having Xed, writing, and won is not an independent clause. Having and writing are not working verbs, and won is both severed from its subject and preceded by comma + AND.
• these three verbs are neither past perfect nor parallel
Quote:
E) ... by the time he succumbed to the disease in 1992, the BU professor introduced three new words to the English language, written over 500 books, and won several distinguished writing awards.
• not past perfect and not parallel
•
introduced is simple past tense (wrong);
written is not a verb (it's a participle, verbED) and thus interrupts with nonsense; and
won is simple past (wrong)
******
Takeaways:
• if forced to choose between simple past (B) and past perfect (C), look for cues such as
by the time and four options that contain past perfect
• understand how to spot a list (A, B, and C)
• understand that verbs with more than one word (
had introduced, is writing, will prepare) can be "split" when used in parallel lists.
-- When we split the verb, either (1) ONLY the first list item takes the first part of the verb or (2) ALL list items take the first part of the verb.
-- On the GMAT, the first setup is much more common than the second.
COMMENTSSourav700 , welcome to Butler.
Almost all of these answers are superb.
Forum members who follow will be helped by and probably relieved to see such clear analysis.
Really nice work.
Sometimes I give kudos for dialogue to both askers (I just made up that word) and answerers (that one, too).
I will do so today. And happy kudos to all who explained!
@generis...you're work around here is astounding. All for one question. Thank you.
11 Jan 2020, 22:52
close
