Not until Hammurabi’s Code was enacted, had a government granted the

Question

Not until Hammurabi’s Code was enacted,  had a government granted the right to its citizens that they could be aware  of their laws.

(A) had a government granted the right to its citizens that they could be aware
(B) did a government grant the right to its citizens that they could be aware
(C) had the government granted the right to its citizens for the awareness
(D) did a government grant the right to its citizens to be aware
(E) had the government granted that its citizens had a right that they could be aware

thangvietname · Answer

IS IT B

had done is not used with the phrase "not until+past time"

in D, to be aware modify the subject, not logic

Abhishek009 · Answer

" They " - doesn't have a clear antecedent  , so I will go with (D) ...

Whats the OA ?

grr8pe · Answer

is it D? B & D are 2 options that come close.

bhatiavai · Answer

IMO : D

Not until Hammurabi’s Code was enacted,  had a government granted the right to its citizens that they could be aware of their laws.

(A) had a government granted the right to its citizens that they could be aware : granted ...that they could be aware (wrong) 
(B) did a government grant the right to its citizens that they could be aware : government grant...that they could be aware(Wrong) . I dont think 'they' is an issue here. It clearly refers to citizens
(C) had the government granted the right to its citizens for the awareness : for the awareness (Wrong)
(D) did a government grant the right to its citizens to be aware Correct
(E) had the government granted that its citizens had a right that they could be aware : Use of 'Had' twice is clearly wrong

Why is the usage of 'Had' after the comma wrong ? The actions seem to be related. We have the usage of 'Until' which tells me Past perfect can be used.
Anyone ?
Many Thanks

Abhishek009 · Answer

Plz find the attachment added timeline representation of the scenario discussed..

Not  until Hammurabi’s Code was enacted  -----> Means a point in the past which has a clear timeline antecedent....

|Government didn't allow right to its citizens to be aware of the laws| ------ |Hammurabi’s Code was enacted| ------ |Present| --------------> |Future|

Clearly the untill + verb-ed refers to some incident in the past and thus doesn't require a Past Perfect Tense...

Hope I cud explain my thought process...

raven09 · Answer

The government granted the rights post the code was enacted - had is incorrect - knock out A, C & E
between B & D
D is a better choice - concise . B has "they could" - they not required unnecessarily increasing the length. Infinitive "to" wins
Answer is D

Bunuel · Answer

MANHATTAN REVIEW OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

The first thing you have to do in this question is distinguish whether to use the simple past or the past perfect. The first part of the sentence uses the simple past. To maintain [parallel structure the second part should also. Eliminate A, C and E. can be eliminated. You have a right to something, rather than a right that. Choice D is the correct answer.

gmexamtaker1 · Answer

Hello experts,

I want to ask about a hypothetical scenario where in choice A instead of had there was a negative tone specifically "hadn't" ,if we neglect structural aspects, meaning wise (or else tense wise) would the answer choice be correct (could we use past perfect)? Because in this case before the code was enacted citizens would not have been granted the right.

DmitryFarber · Answer

UNSTOPPABLE12  I see what you mean, but that wouldn't work in the context. It's impossible to look at just that one part and ignore structure. Sure, we could say "Governments hadn't granted the right . . . until Hammurabi's Code." However, in that form we could also use the affirmative: "Governments HAD done xyz . . . until Hammurabi's Code." The problem in A is connected to the structure of the sentence. We have "Not until X did Y happen." That initial "not until" won't work with the past perfect, because the action after "not until X" is set up to be something that follows X, not something that precedes it.

rakeshtewatia0105 · Answer

Can anyone please explain why we can't use had... i chose the correct option but still i anyone can explain why "had" is wrong and "did" is correct.

DmitryFarber · Answer

rakeshtewatia0105  To use past perfect, we need the event in question to precede another past event. We don't have that here. The meaning here is that the Code actually granted citizens the right to be aware of laws. If we didn't realize that, we'd still have to read the order as  first  the Code was passed and  then  citizens were granted the right. Either way, past perfect is inappropriate.

saury2k · Answer

can anyone please explain the issue with B.

VeritasPrepErika · Answer

Let's compare B and D directly:

(B) Not until Hammurabi’s Code was enacted, did a government grant the right to its citizens  that they could  be aware of their laws.
(D) Not until Hammurabi’s Code was enacted, did a government grant the right to its citizens  to  be aware of their laws.

The only difference between the two answers are these words. Let's ignore the first part of the sentence and cut out some prepositional phrases to make this easier:

(B) ... the right  to its citizens   that they could  be aware  of their laws .
(D) ... the right  to its citizens   to  be aware  of their laws .

(B) ... the right  that they could  be aware.
(D) ... the right  to  be aware.

Unfortunately, this comes down to idiomatic usage, not a nice, transferable rule — do we say somethings is a "right that _____" or a "right to _____"? You might think of some classic examples: "right to life, liberty, and property", "right to education", "right to vote", etc. There aren't any obvious examples for "right that _____", so it isn't likely to be idiomatic. So we should pick D over B.

A good desperation move here if you aren't sure of the idiom: B is significantly longer/less efficient/wordier than D. Does that mean it's wrong? Not at all. But if there aren't any grammatical or meaning mistakes and we don't have anything else to go on, the shorter answer is likely the more effective and idiomatic answer.

Amandhanani2627 · Answer

I here the correct usage is " grant the right to be aware " so though use of had and did are correct, the correct idiomatic usage is the decision point

Posted from my mobile device

Crytiocanalyst · Answer

Simple past has to be used therefore options with had A, C , E is eleminated

In B they usage in the end doesn't have the right antecendant or reference and we always have a right to and right that

Therefore IMO D

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Not until Hammurabi’s Code was enacted, had a government granted the

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

Not until Hammurabi’s Code was enacted, had a government granted the

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards