Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 20:14 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 20:14
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
ritula
Joined: 18 May 2008
Last visit: 12 Apr 2011
Posts: 695
Own Kudos:
3,159
 [213]
Posts: 695
Kudos: 3,159
 [213]
10
Kudos
Add Kudos
203
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,108
Own Kudos:
32,884
 [53]
Given Kudos: 700
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,108
Kudos: 32,884
 [53]
20
Kudos
Add Kudos
33
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
nevergiveup
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Last visit: 29 Dec 2010
Posts: 312
Own Kudos:
1,609
 [24]
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 312
Kudos: 1,609
 [24]
17
Kudos
Add Kudos
7
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
ExpertsGlobal5
User avatar
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,193
Own Kudos:
4,759
 [2]
Given Kudos: 43
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,193
Kudos: 4,759
 [2]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-
ritula
Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he also won the loyalty of its citizens: the invading Danes were well aware of this weakness and used it to their advantage in 893.


(A) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he

(B) The fact that King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he had

(C) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he

(D) The fact that King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean that he

(E) Just because King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he

Concepts tested here: Tenses + Pronouns + Meaning

• The past perfect tense (marked by the use of helping verb "had") is used when a sentence contains two actions in the past; the helping verb "had" is used with the action in the "greater past"; further, if the sentence contains more than two actions in the past, the past perfect tense will be used to refer to all but the latest action.
• One of the acceptable usages of the placeholder pronoun “it” is that it can refer to a that/who/whether clause.

A: The sentence formed by this answer choice incorrectly uses the simple past tense verbs “occupied”, "fortified", and “won” to refer to the earlier of multiple actions that concluded in the past-- King Alfred occupying and fortifying London, King Alfred not being able to win the loyalty of its citizens, and the Danes using this weakness to their advantage in 893; please remember, the past perfect tense (marked by the use of helping verb "had") is used when a sentence contains two actions in the past; the helping verb "had" is used with the action in the "greater past"; further, if the sentence contains more than two actions in the past, the past perfect tense will be used to refer to all but the latest action.

B: Correct. This answer choice correctly uses the past perfect tense verbs "had occupied", "had...fortified", and "had won" to refer to the earlier of multiple actions that concluded in the past-- King Alfred occupying and fortifying London, King Alfred not being able to win the loyalty of its citizens, and the Danes using this weakness to their advantage in 893. Further, Option B correctly uses the pronoun “it” to refer to only one referent, “this weakness”.

C: The sentence formed by this answer choice incorrectly uses the simple past tense verbs “occupied”, "fortified", and “won” to refer to the earlier of multiple actions that concluded in the past-- King Alfred occupying and fortifying London, King Alfred not being able to win the loyalty of its citizens, and the Danes using this weakness to their advantage in 893; please remember, the past perfect tense (marked by the use of helping verb "had") is used when a sentence contains two actions in the past; the helping verb "had" is used with the action in the "greater past"; further, if the sentence contains more than two actions in the past, the past perfect tense will be used to refer to all but the latest action. Further, Option C incorrectly uses the pronoun “it” as both a placeholder pronoun and to refer to the noun “this weakness”; please remember, a pronoun can only have one referent in a sentence.

D: The sentence formed by this answer choice incorrectly uses the simple past tense verbs “occupied”, "fortified", and “won” to refer to the earlier of multiple actions that concluded in the past-- King Alfred occupying and fortifying London, King Alfred not being able to win the loyalty of its citizens, and the Danes using this weakness to their advantage in 893; please remember, the past perfect tense (marked by the use of helping verb "had") is used when a sentence contains two actions in the past; the helping verb "had" is used with the action in the "greater past"; further, if the sentence contains more than two actions in the past, the past perfect tense will be used to refer to all but the latest action. Further, Option D incorrectly uses the pronoun “it” as both a placeholder pronoun and to refer to the noun “this weakness”; please remember, a pronoun can only have one referent in a sentence.

E: The sentence formed by this answer choice incorrectly uses the simple past tense verb “won” to refer to the earlier of multiple actions that concluded in the past-- King Alfred occupying and fortifying London, King Alfred not being able to win the loyalty of its citizens, and the Danes using this weakness to their advantage in 893; please remember, the past perfect tense (marked by the use of helping verb "had") is used when a sentence contains two actions in the past; the helping verb "had" is used with the action in the "greater past"; further, if the sentence contains more than two actions in the past, the past perfect tense will be used to refer to all but the latest action. Further, Option E incorrectly uses the pronoun “it” as both a placeholder pronoun and to refer to the noun “this weakness”; please remember, a pronoun can only have one referent in a sentence.

Hence, B is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Simple Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



To understand the concept of "Past Perfect Tense" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team
General Discussion
User avatar
jainu
Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Last visit: 20 Jun 2010
Posts: 65
Own Kudos:
246
 [2]
Posts: 65
Kudos: 246
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ritula
Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he also won the loyalty of its citizens: the invading Danes were well aware of this weakness and used it to their advantage in 893.

(A) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he
(B) The fact that King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he had
(C) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he
(D) The fact that King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean that he
(E) Just because King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he

answer should be B
3 actions: KA occupying and fortifying....I
KA winning loyality........II
Danes knowing the above facts.........III
III happened after I and II.
I and II happened at same time.
So there is difference in time of occurences of I,II event from III event.
Hence we use past perfect.
User avatar
RaviChandra
Joined: 02 Oct 2009
Last visit: 06 Feb 2023
Posts: 307
Own Kudos:
4,212
 [1]
Given Kudos: 412
GMAT 1: 530 Q47 V17
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
WE:Business Development (Consulting)
Products:
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
Posts: 307
Kudos: 4,212
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I feel the fact that is wrong!!
User avatar
therockobama
Joined: 09 Nov 2009
Last visit: 20 Jan 2012
Posts: 36
Own Kudos:
19
 [1]
Given Kudos: 3
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 660 Q46 V35
GPA: 3.7
GMAT 1: 660 Q46 V35
Posts: 36
Kudos: 19
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
RaviChandra
I feel the fact that is wrong!!

I also don't like the use of "the fact that." If it is a fact, why not just say so. I don't know what value does this idiom add to any sentence.

But the answer is B in this question, because of the errors in other options.
User avatar
rohitgoel15
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
Last visit: 29 Jan 2018
Posts: 184
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 20
Schools: HEC '15 (A)
Posts: 184
Kudos: 3,158
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
egmat
Hi All,

Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he also won the loyalty of its citizens: the invading Danes were well aware of this weakness and used it to their advantage in 893.



Since the meaning of the sentence is easy to understand let’s begin the POE. We will identify the errors in the sentence through POE itself.

Choice A: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he. Incorrect. This choice is incorrect because the verb “did not mean” does not have a subject and that leads to fragment.

Choice B: The fact that King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he had. Correct. In this choice, verb “did not mean” has a subject “the fact” and that fact is that King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886.

Choice C: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he. Incorrect. Pronoun “it” in this choice is referring to the entire preceding. This is incorrect because a pronoun cannot refer to anything but a noun or another pronoun.

Choice D: The fact that King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean that he. Incorrect. There are two errors here.
1. Subject “The fact” does not have a verb and hence we have a fragment here.
2. Pronoun “it” is again referring to the entire preceding clause.

Choice E: Just because King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he. Incorrect. Pronoun “it” is again referring to the entire preceding clause.

PS: Notice that the chronology of the actions in this sentence is very clear. Mention of the specific years when the actions took place establish the sequence clearly. Still the use of past perfect is preferable here because the sentence says "the fact did not mean". If it said "the fact does not mean", then we could easily do with the simple past tense.



1. When the sequence of the events is established by obvious markers, use of past perfect tense becomes optional.
2. Pronoun can only refer to a noun or another pronoun.
3. Every clause, independent or dependent must have subject-verb pair. Absence of any of the two leads to fragment error.

Hope this helps.

Thanks.
Shraddha


Kudos for the explanation Shraddha ..
I have one question. What does the it refer to in the second portion:

Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he also won the loyalty of its citizens: the invading Danes were well aware of this weakness and used itto their advantage in 893.

(A) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he
(B) The fact that King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he had
(C) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he
(D) The fact that King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean that he
(E) Just because King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,108
Own Kudos:
32,884
 [2]
Given Kudos: 700
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,108
Kudos: 32,884
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
rohitgoel15


Kudos for the explanation Shraddha ..
I have one question. What does the it refer to in the second portion:

Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he also won the loyalty of its citizens: the invading Danes were well aware of this weakness and used itto their advantage in 893.

(A) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he
(B) The fact that King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he had
(C) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he
(D) The fact that King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean that he
(E) Just because King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he

Thanks for the Kudos.
The possessive "its" refers to "London" in this sentence. Citizens belong only a to country and there is just one country mentioned in the sentence before "its". Now, do not get confused to see a possessive pronoun referring to a non-possessive noun. It is absolutely fine for a possessive pronoun to refer to a non-possessive noun. However, a possessive noun cannot be referred to by a non-possessive pronoun.
For example, we cannot say: Lisa's cat is very pretty and she takes very good care of it.
In this sentence, non-possessive "she" cannot be used for possessive Lisa's.

Hope this helps.
Shraddha
User avatar
rohitgoel15
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
Last visit: 29 Jan 2018
Posts: 184
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 20
Schools: HEC '15 (A)
Posts: 184
Kudos: 3,158
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Thanks again Shraddha. But in the questions I am talking of "it". There is no "its".
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,108
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 700
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,108
Kudos: 32,884
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi Rohit,
My bad. I thought you asked about the possessive "its" in the first part of the sentence.
"it" in the second part of the sentence is referring to "weakness".

Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he also won the loyalty of its citizens: the invading Danes were well aware of this weakness and used it to their advantage in 893.

The Danes were aware of this weakness that King Alfred had not won the loyalty of the citizen. So the Danes used that weakness to their advantage in 893.

Hope this helps.
Shraddha
avatar
vigneshceg
Joined: 25 Dec 2012
Last visit: 19 Dec 2017
Posts: 38
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 6
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Sustainability
GPA: 4
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Posts: 38
Kudos: 17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
egmat
Hi Rohit,
My bad. I thought you asked about the possessive "its" in the first part of the sentence.
"it" in the second part of the sentence is referring to "weakness".

Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he also won the loyalty of its citizens: the invading Danes were well aware of this weakness and used it to their advantage in 893.

The Danes were aware of this weakness that King Alfred had not won the loyalty of the citizen. So the Danes used that weakness to their advantage in 893.

Hope this helps.
Shraddha

Hi Shraddha,
The fact that King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he had

I have two questions in regards to tenses.
1) I thought that Alfred occupied (had before verb occupied) first and then fortified in the the year 886
2) he had occupied and he had -also- won - using two past perfect sentence within the same sentence .

he had jogged and ran in the morning.
Does this refer to two different actions or two simultaneous actions ?

Thanks in advance.
User avatar
plumber250
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Last visit: 21 Dec 2015
Posts: 220
Own Kudos:
960
 [3]
Given Kudos: 4
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Posts: 220
Kudos: 960
 [3]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi, yes you do need the second 'had'

The main sentence is the second part, after the colon.

The underlined section is all prior to the comma and is referring to that later action. So everything in that section happened before the main part of the sentence, so all needs the 'had'

Clear?
avatar
vigneshceg
Joined: 25 Dec 2012
Last visit: 19 Dec 2017
Posts: 38
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 6
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Sustainability
GPA: 4
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Posts: 38
Kudos: 17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
plumber250
Hi, yes you do need the second 'had'

The main sentence is the second part, after the colon.

The underlined section is all prior to the comma and is referring to that later action. So everything in that section happened before the main part of the sentence, so all needs the 'had'

Clear?

Hi,
I`m still confused. Is it possible for you to break the sentence on lines of timeline ?
Is it possible for you to provide a simple sentence with two hads used ?
User avatar
plumber250
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Last visit: 21 Dec 2015
Posts: 220
Own Kudos:
960
 [4]
Given Kudos: 4
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Posts: 220
Kudos: 960
 [4]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
OK, Here is the correct answer in full:

The fact that King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he had also won the loyalty of its citizens: the invading Danes were well aware of this weakness and used it to their advantage in 893.

If you split it down, it is essentially saying:

Because this:

King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he had also won the loyalty of its citizens

Happened

This then happened afterwards:

the invading Danes were well aware of this weakness and used it to their advantage in 893

So every thing that happened first needs to be shown to be further in the past than the stuff that happened second.
User avatar
Abhishek009
User avatar
Board of Directors
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Last visit: 18 Jul 2025
Posts: 5,937
Own Kudos:
5,327
 [2]
Given Kudos: 463
Status:QA & VA Forum Moderator
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
WE:Business Development (Commercial Banking)
Posts: 5,937
Kudos: 5,327
 [2]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TGC
30. Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he also won the loyalty of its citizens: the invading Danes were well aware of this weakness and used it to their advantage in 893.

The correct idiomatic usage of Just Becasue is - Just because X doesn't mean that Y ( options A, C and E rejected ; 3:2 split )

(A) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he - Incorrect
(C) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he - Incorrect
(E) Just because King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he - Incorrect


Left with 2 options -

(B) The fact that King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he had - Correct
(886) Alfred occupied and fortified London ----------->(893) Danes invaded London
Alfred occupied and fortified London before Danes invaded London , so Had + Past Participle is correct.

(D) The fact that King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean that he - Incorrect

Hence (B) is correct !!
User avatar
daagh
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Last visit: 16 Oct 2020
Posts: 5,264
Own Kudos:
42,417
 [4]
Given Kudos: 422
Status: enjoying
Location: India
WE:Education (Education)
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 5,264
Kudos: 42,417
 [4]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he also won the loyalty of its citizens: the invading Danes were well aware of this weakness and used it to their advantage in 893.

(A) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he
(B) The fact that King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he had
(C) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he
(D) The fact that King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean that he
(E) Just because King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he

We might drop C, D, and E in one go, since the pronoun doest seems to have a single noun to antecede. The only singular noun it can refer to is 'London' and to say 'London did not mean' makes no good sense.
Between A and B ---1. B is clearer in that the past perfect tense used to describe the actions were prior to the Danish invasion seven years later. 2. A is a faulty construction. The first part which is a subordinate clause started by 'because' should be followed by an IC using an appropriate subject. You will find that there is no main clause upon which the sub-clause can depend upon. Here there is a subordinate phrase ( which seems to act as the subject) followed by the verb' did not mean', which in turn is modified by a relative clause started by 'that. There is a 'causal clause' but no 'effect clause'.
User avatar
mSKR
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Last visit: 10 Mar 2024
Posts: 1,290
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
Posts: 1,290
Kudos: 937
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he also won the loyalty of its citizens: the invading Danes were well aware of this weakness and used it to their advantage in 893.

(A) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he

I understand the reason of rejecting A is that subject can not be replaced with clause.

AjiteshArun EducationAisle CrackVerbal CrackVerbalGMAT svasan05 : Actually , I just want to double confirm that there could not be any answer in GMAT in which clause can be subject of a sentence.

It means , We have something wrong in our daily usage. usually I heard/said such sentences. Example: I can't go to supermarket doesn't mean I can't buy items.
In my first reading, I could not reject A because my ears have heard such sentence constructions.
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
 [1]
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mSKR
It means , We have something wrong in our daily usage. usually I heard/said such sentences.
Hi mSKR,

There are situations in which we don't want to use informal constructions, but normal conversation is not one of them. So avoid just because on the GMAT, but there is no reason to stop using it altogether.

Let's add a just because to your example:
Just because I can't go to supermarket doesn't mean I can't buy items.

This is not expected to be correct on the GMAT exam, but people do use it in normal conversation, and no one can seriously argue that they can't understand what this sentence is trying to say just because it uses a just because.
User avatar
Basshead
Joined: 09 Jan 2020
Last visit: 07 Feb 2024
Posts: 925
Own Kudos:
301
 [1]
Given Kudos: 432
Location: United States
Posts: 925
Kudos: 301
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he also won the loyalty of its citizens: the invading Danes were well aware of this weakness and used it to their advantage in 893.

We can eliminate C, D, and E because there is no proper antecedent for 'it'.

Between A and B:

Quote:
(A) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he

'because' starts a subordinating conjunction. Therefore, we need a subject for the main clause. As it stands, the sentence is a fragment. This is easier to see if you remove 'just' from the sentence:

Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he

Since we're using simple past tense "occupied and fortified", we need present tense for "did not mean". These two events did not occur at the same time.

Quote:
(B) The fact that King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he had

B looks good. We have past perfect in 'had occupied' and 'he had' to depict that a certain action occurred before another action.

I don't think past perfect is absolutely necessary since the sequence of events is crystal clear, but it's not incorrect usage.
 1   2   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
188 posts