Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not comi

Good discussion. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses the various "avatars" of “that”. Have attached the corresponding section of the book, for your reference.

_________________

egmat GMATNinja EMPOWERgmatVerbal

Expert help needed - can you explain why the use of past perfect "Great Britain had had " is incorrect in option B? I thought that the use of past perfect here is correct since a sequence of events is established by using "until 1868". In other words, the first event in the sequence is "Great Britain had had no prime ministers" and the second event in the sequence is the year 1868. Isn't this correct usage?

Thanks in advance!

Hi jlo1234,

Is there a reason you're looking specifically at the usage of the past perfect in option B? I ask because the had had itself is not a problem (it isn't an absolute error). Or, to put it more directly, it is possible to use the past perfect with until. Whether we should is another matter though, as the simple past does the job just as well (describing a situation that existed till a specific point in time in the past).
_________________

Thank you so much for clarifying - I was just trying to find out all the errors in each choice to make sure I understand the question.

hello experts! ANDREW MartyTargetTestPrep GMATNinja

wow, what is this?
first the introduction part is confusing and later "no" and "not" are, leading to a puzzle.
I tried to solve it but when I saw the clock, it was already 5 minutes.
(I eliminated A and B based on "Disraeli and 1868" are in list, which is illogical, time and a name". hard to know what is Disraeli?)
chose C as couldn't comprehend D and E.

Can you please help me, how to approach this one considering the time limit.
please help me to eliminate all choices.
Thanks

First eliminate the easy outs (B) and (C) because the present perfect "have ... come" is in conflict with the simple past "had" and "were."

(E) is gone because "It was only in 1868 and Disraeli" conveys that the events mentioned were "in" Disraeli."

Compare the remaining two choices, (A) and (D).

(A) illogically uses the continuous "coming," thus suggesting that prime ministers were "coming from a landed family" on a continuous basis.

(D) conveys the logical meaning that, it was not until a certain point in time that Great Britain had a prime minister who "did not come" from a landed family.

"Did not come" may seem a little off, but "who did not come" logically describes a prime minister who is not someone who came from a landed family.

The correct answer is (D).
_________________

Hello, dcoolguy. I think you meant to tag me as AndrewN. (I am not sure who this other Andrew may be.) This question is undoubtedly easier for a native speaker. Both times I have laid eyes on it, I have spent around 35 seconds getting to the correct answer. I will trace my thought process to help with your query.


Although I had my doubts about until Disraeli (until a person?), I did not start out by crossing off answer choices (A) through (C). Rather, I glanced at the verb tense at the end of (B) and (C) and made two quick eliminations: until 1868 and have come do not match up. The present perfect tense is improperly used.


With 40 percent of the answer choices gone, I looked to separate answer choices (D) and (E) as the only two that started with it. Compare them side by side:


The former pairs until with a year only, and the verbs are active: had a prime minister and did not come; the latter removes until and replaces it with only, and then we get a compound only in 1868 and [in] Disraeli. I suppose that could work, although it takes more effort to evaluate. Strike two comes in the change from the direct had a prime minister in (D) to had one of its prime ministers in (E). Now, we have gone from a statement on one person to a consideration of one person among many, and we also have to deal with the pronoun its—Great Britain had one of [Great Britain's] prime ministers is poorly phrased, to say the least. Finally, the earlier verb form has morphed into an adjective in coming, and although I would not automatically disfavor an adjective for its verb equivalent, in this case, I can appreciate that I would only have more work to do (to pin the modifier to the noun). All things considered, it should be clear that (E) is worse than (D). With two options left, we can examine (A) and (D) side by side:


The original sentence, in addition to until Disraeli, tells us what Great Britain did not have, refers to multiple PMs, and presents the same adjective we saw in (E) in coming; meanwhile, answer choice (D) splits the year and the name, tells us what Great Britain did have in a single PM, and uses an easy-to-follow verb to express the vital meaning. Since there are a few doubts in (A) against none in (D), the latter is the safer option.

You do not have to find hard evidence to use against any given iteration of the sentence, but if you can find some reason to make a clear elimination, so much the better. When you can work with just what is left, the task becomes simpler, and you start to pit doubts against non-doubts. That is the best way I can think to describe my own approach to SC.

Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew
_________________

Thank you for such a detailed explanation.

Yes I ment you. I still don't know how to use this platform effectively. I couldn't find your exact user name. I just remembered your name.
now I know its- AndrewN

so, we can't just eliminate on the basis of "Disraeli and 1868", because even by context its confusing for a reader to know what Disraeli is, and say, even if we know, how can a time and a name be on the same list?
Thanks

Actually, I think you could eliminate the answer choices that paired Disraeli and 1868 on that basis alone when given a clearer alternative such as what we see in answer choices (C) and (D). I was just saying that I marked such phrasing as a doubt rather than making a perhaps hasty elimination. It is more casual to say until [person] and [date], but in a properly written sentence, one I might see in the New York Times, I would expect to see something more like Until Nixon in 1974, no President had resigned from office. This usage still takes some liberties, but a native English speaker would interpret the opening phrase to mean, Until the time that Nixon resigned in 1974... Confused yet? The point is, do not look for quick-and-easy rules that may or may not be applicable to the sentence at hand. Go with the safest option available in terms of clarity and conciseness. It is okay not to know how to pick apart everything to arrive at the correct answer.

- Andrew
_________________

AjiteshArun Can you please explain why option D is correct and what is the intended meaning of the sentence.

dear avigutman,
AndrewN,
MartyTargetTestPrep ,

do you guys think it should be "there was no prime ministers " in C rather than "there were..."?