GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 20 Oct 2019, 02:35

### 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

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

# Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 951
Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 16 Nov 2018, 04:27
4
53
00:00

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

42% (01:23) correct 58% (01:37) wrong based on 608 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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

Originally posted by ritula on 23 Mar 2009, 03:21.
Last edited by Bunuel on 16 Nov 2018, 04:27, edited 3 times in total.
Edited the question.
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2866
Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 May 2012, 09:53
4
9
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.
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 398
Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Mar 2009, 07:26
14
2
ritula wrote:
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

I am going to try to use the split and resplit method I just studied from manhattan gmat.

First split, the action happened in 886 is before the past action in 893; therefore, past perfect is needed. So eliminate A, C, and D.

Second split, it does not have clear referent. So eliminate C, D, and E

The correct answer should be B. Total time used to answer this question 30secs.
##### General Discussion
Director
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 647
Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Mar 2009, 03:45
IMHO, "had occupied" is not needed
why not A then?

(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
_________________
http://gmatclub.com/forum/math-polygons-87336.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/competition-for-the-best-gmat-error-log-template-86232.html
Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Posts: 74
Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Mar 2009, 06:20
2
ritula wrote:
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

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.
_________________
"The highest result of education is tolerance."
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Oct 2009
Posts: 381
GMAT 1: 530 Q47 V17
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Mar 2010, 08:06
1
I feel the fact that is wrong!!
Intern
Joined: 09 Nov 2009
Posts: 38
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 660 Q46 V35
GPA: 3.7
Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Apr 2010, 08:21
1
RaviChandra wrote:
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.
Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
Posts: 222
Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 May 2012, 02:51
egmat wrote:
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.

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
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2866
Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 May 2012, 05:43
1
rohitgoel15 wrote:

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.
_________________
Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
Posts: 222
Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 May 2012, 05:46
Thanks again Shraddha. But in the questions I am talking of "it". There is no "its".
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2866
Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 May 2012, 05:55
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.
_________________
Intern
Joined: 25 Dec 2012
Posts: 42
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Sustainability
Schools: Fisher '16 (M\$)
GPA: 4
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2013, 07:10
egmat wrote:
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.

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 ?

Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 988
Location: United States
Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2013, 14:45
If you don't mind, lemme jump in.

vigneshceg wrote:
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

You're correct. Yet both verbs are used in past perfect. The reason is that the author wants to emphasize the time sequence, so he used past perfect. Otherwise, we stick to the simple past.

Quote:
2) he had occupied and he had -also- won - using two past perfect sentence within the same sentence.

No, the author wants to say "the fact that X did not mean Y", the clause Y does not reflex the tense sequence from the previous clause X. Because there's "he", so the clause Y is different from the previous clause X. (if YES, we should eliminate "he")

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

Please be noted that two different actions can happen simultaneously. e.g. he was talking while running. "Talk" and "run" are different actions, but happen simultaneously.
As far as I know, your question is: can one subject do two different actions at the same time (simultaneously)?. It depends on the context.

I think your sentence is just a report and also there is no specific time needed to be emphasized, so Past Perfect tense is unnecessary. Although your sentence reflexes two sequence actions, we just need one tense, rather than two different tenses.

____________________________
Please kudo if my post helps!
_________________
Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 250
Schools: LBS '14 (A\$)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Apr 2013, 09:33
1
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?
Intern
Joined: 25 Dec 2012
Posts: 42
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Sustainability
Schools: Fisher '16 (M\$)
GPA: 4
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Apr 2013, 23:46
plumber250 wrote:
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 ?
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 250
Schools: LBS '14 (A\$)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Apr 2013, 00:36
1
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.
Board of Directors
Status: QA & VA Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 4774
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jun 2015, 10:58
1
TGC wrote:
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 !!
_________________
Thanks and Regards

Abhishek....

PLEASE FOLLOW THE RULES FOR POSTING IN QA AND VA FORUM AND USE SEARCH FUNCTION BEFORE POSTING NEW QUESTIONS

How to use Search Function in GMAT Club | Rules for Posting in QA forum | Writing Mathematical Formulas |Rules for Posting in VA forum | Request Expert's Reply ( VA Forum Only )
Retired Moderator
Status: enjoying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5101
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Feb 2017, 07:39
Top Contributor
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'.
_________________
Are you stuck around 630? If you can't make out how to pole-vault over the 630-barrier, you can do so with my one-to-one lessons. (+919884544509)
Board of Directors
Status: Stepping into my 10 years long dream
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 3580
Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Mar 2017, 00:10
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 --> Awkward

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

(C) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he --> No clear antecedent of it. If it is London then it will be non sensible.

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

(E) Just because King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he --> Same As C
_________________
My GMAT Story: From V21 to V40
My MBA Journey: My 10 years long MBA Dream
My Secret Hacks: Best way to use GMATClub | Importance of an Error Log!
Verbal Resources: All SC Resources at one place | All CR Resources at one place

GMAT Club Inbuilt Error Log Functionality - View More.
New Visa Forum - Ask all your Visa Related Questions - here.
New! Best Reply Functionality on GMAT Club!
Find a bug in the new email templates and get rewarded with 2 weeks of GMATClub Tests for free
Check our new About Us Page here.
Senior Manager
Status: Countdown Begins...
Joined: 03 Jul 2016
Posts: 277
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
Schools: IIMB
GMAT 1: 580 Q48 V22
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Mar 2017, 03:15
As many of others have posted, since we have timelines defined for each action, do we need past perfect tense here?

Also what is better, Just because of vs The fact that???
Re: Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not   [#permalink] 18 Mar 2017, 03:15

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 24 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by