Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 02:20 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 02:20
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,502
Own Kudos:
7,511
 [1]
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,502
Kudos: 7,511
 [1]
Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property 19 May 2020, 13:22
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Asad
generis
Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property tax increases, California has come more and more to rely on personal income taxes for its revenues; income taxes have increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to 48 percent by 2002.

A) have increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to 48 percent by 2002

B) have increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to being up to 48 percent by 2002

C) have increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962, and by 2002 were up to 48 percent

D) increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962, and by 2002 were 48 percent

E) increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to 48 percent by 2002

SC00150.02
Hello Experts,
MartyTargetTestPrep, GMATNinja, GMATGuruNY, AjiteshArun, DmitryFarber, MentorTutoring, EducationAisle, generis
I've a query about correct choice E.
So, the correct sentence is:
Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property tax increases, California has come more and more to rely on personal income taxes for its revenues; income taxes increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to 48 percent by 2002.

I can still write this sentence as follows if i don't miss anything!

Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property tax increases, California has come more and more to rely on personal income taxes for its revenues; by 2002, income taxes increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to 48 percent.

I did not find any meaning difference in both versions above. But, we need to be specific when we use 'past perfect tense', at least here in this case. We can use past perfect tense by the following ways:
Here are 2 examples:
I had taken 6 practice tests by the time I took GMAT.
By 2018, I had taken the GMAT three times.
^^ So, when we see an specific time frame like the highlighted part, we must use 'past perfect tense'. So, why the past form (increased) has been used in E? Shouldn't we use had after income taxes in the red sentence like the following one?
Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property tax increases, California has come more and more to rely on personal income taxes for its revenues; by 2002, income taxes had increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to 48 percent.
I am not questioning the official question, but I have vast curiosity to know more. :)
Could you clarify a bit, please?
Thanks__
Show more
Good question, Asad. The reason the simple past works in the original sentence but not in your red sentence above is that the placement of that by 2002 phrase creates a specific timeline. Moving forward, in linear time, the simple past indicates that within a closed period of time from 1962 to 2002, income taxes increased. No problem. However, by placing by 2002 at the head of the second clause, you have jumped ahead to the end, but then you are reaching back into a past that needs to bridge up to the established present (2002), so the use of the past perfect is fitting instead. In other words, it would not make sense to say that by 2002, income taxes... increased in 1962. The arrow of time you have created with such a structure is no longer linear, but more V-shaped: present-past-present. That is a tricky one, and I doubt I would even think of it in such terms if I were to see such a sentence on the test, but I would probably opt for the past perfect version just the same.

- Andrew
User avatar
abhishekmayank
User avatar
Joined: 26 Apr 2016
Last visit: 28 Jan 2024
Posts: 201
Own Kudos:
59
Given Kudos: 6
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V33
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V33
Posts: 201
Kudos: 59
Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property 20 May 2020, 04:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Could we say that the below sentence is correct if we replace 'By' with 'In':

Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property tax increases, California has come more and more to rely on personal income taxes for its revenues; income taxes have increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to 48 percent in 2002
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,502
Own Kudos:
7,511
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,502
Kudos: 7,511
Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property 20 May 2020, 06:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
abhishekmayank
Could we say that the below sentence is correct if we replace 'By' with 'In':

Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property tax increases, California has come more and more to rely on personal income taxes for its revenues; income taxes have increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to 48 percent in 2002
Show more
Hello, abhishekmayank. If you intend to say that the year is 2002, rather than that that year marks the endpoint of a forty-year period, and to imply that further change could occur within the year, then yes, you could use the present perfect as you have indicated above. You could almost picture the sentence with so far slipped in somewhere as a parenthetical, perhaps after 48 percent.

- Andrew
User avatar
bitorbyte
User avatar
Joined: 11 Jan 2020
Last visit: 30 Sep 2020
Posts: 22
Own Kudos:
20
Given Kudos: 33
Status:Future Ninja
Posts: 22
Kudos: 20
Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property 20 May 2020, 22:58
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
There are more than 25000 idioms in English. For us non-native speakers, it is a nightmare to try to rely on idioms. So I recommend you always try to find non-idiom related issues.

Here the first split is between the use of simple past tense and present perfect tense. Many fall for the present perfect trap because they have rightly learned that present perfect tense is used when describing an event that began in the past and that either continues into the present or continues to affect the present.

In this question, while it is true that California still relies on income taxes and hence its effect can still be felt (in fact, for this reason, it uses present perfect tense in the first sentence), we cannot say that the effect of the increase between 1962 and 2002 (i.e. from 18% to 48%) can be felt in the present. If the sentence replaced 'by 2002' by 'this year', then we would use present perfect. It seems like the test makers deliberately included the first sentence (i.e. before the semicolon) to make test takers feel as if the effect of the tax increase (between 1962 to 2002) can still be felt.

Since we need to use simple past tense to describe an event that started in the past and neither continues to the present nor continues to affect the present, we are left with D and E. Let's analyze D. I am not sure whether we must need "to Y" when we have "from X". I try not to rely on idioms. There is an 'and', so let's look for parallelism issue.
Income taxes increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962, and by 2002 were 48 percent. This can be split as
(I) Income taxes increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962.
(II) Income taxes by 2002 were 48 percent.
In a parallel structure, each parallel element must make sense independently. Here, in (II), it is not clear what the 48 % is of. While it is common to have ellipsis (omission of words that are understood without being stated) in comparison, it is necessary that each elements of a parallel structure makes sense without other elements. While you might notice GMAT might have broken this rule in some questions, option E do not have such less preferable issues.

There also seem to be a confusion regarding the use of simple past vs past perfect because there is a time marker 'by 2002'. Past perfect tense is used to indicate an event that occurred before a specific date or time in the past. In this question, the increase happened not just 'by 2002' but we know specifically when it started and ended (i.e. from 1962 to 2002), therefore for such specific period of time in the past, we use simple past tense. Please note that you should not automatically think that we must use past perfect tense just because there is a time marker. Consider this example:
By 2010, most people were using emails to communicate.
In this example, 'using emails' did not end before the time marker 'By 2010', so we don't need a perfect tense.
User avatar
mSKR
User avatar
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Last visit: 10 Mar 2024
Posts: 1,290
Own Kudos:
938
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
Schools: IE (A) IIML-IPMX '22 (A) HKUST '22
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
Schools: IE (A) IIML-IPMX '22 (A) HKUST '22
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
Posts: 1,290
Kudos: 938
Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property 30 Jul 2020, 11:00
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
MentorTutoring
abhishekmayank
Could we say that the below sentence is correct if we replace 'By' with 'In':

Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property tax increases, California has come more and more to rely on personal income taxes for its revenues; income taxes have increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to 48 percent in 2002
Hello, abhishekmayank. If you intend to say that the year is 2002, rather than that that year marks the endpoint of a forty-year period, and to imply that further change could occur within the year, then yes, you could use the present perfect as you have indicated above. You could almost picture the sentence with so far slipped in somewhere as a parenthetical, perhaps after 48 percent.

- Andrew
Show more

Hi Sir MentorTutoring,

A clarification please:
Quote:
Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property tax increases, California has come more and more to rely on personal income taxes for its revenues; income taxes have increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to 48 percent in 2002
Show more
[/quote]
As per this change to "in", the sentence still should use Simple past, right? because it is something happened in past .
I think i didn't get meaning of the line : and to imply that further change could occur within the year, then yes, you could use the present perfect as you have indicated above.
Could you please clarify with an example when it is suitable to use present perfect tense?
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,502
Own Kudos:
7,511
 [1]
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,502
Kudos: 7,511
 [1]
Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property 30 Jul 2020, 11:58
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
imSKR
MentorTutoring
abhishekmayank
Could we say that the below sentence is correct if we replace 'By' with 'In':

Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property tax increases, California has come more and more to rely on personal income taxes for its revenues; income taxes have increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to 48 percent in 2002
Hello, abhishekmayank. If you intend to say that the year is 2002, rather than that that year marks the endpoint of a forty-year period, and to imply that further change could occur within the year, then yes, you could use the present perfect as you have indicated above. You could almost picture the sentence with so far slipped in somewhere as a parenthetical, perhaps after 48 percent.

- Andrew

Hi Sir MentorTutoring,

A clarification please:
Quote:
Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property tax increases, California has come more and more to rely on personal income taxes for its revenues; income taxes have increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to 48 percent in 2002
As per this change to "in", the sentence still should use Simple past, right? because it is something happened in past .
I think i didn't get meaning of the line : and to imply that further change could occur within the year, then yes, you could use the present perfect as you have indicated above.
Could you please clarify with an example when it is suitable to use present perfect tense?
Show more
Honestly, with the changes made, it would depend on the meaning the author intended to convey. If the year were 2002, then using the present perfect would be fine. An example, borrowing from the above dialogue:

Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property tax increases, California has come more and more to rely on personal income taxes for its revenues; income taxes have increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to 48 percent (so far) in 2002.

In this sentence, it is understood that there is room for further change within the year 2002, so the present perfect tense would be suitable to use.

- Andrew
avatar
DexterZabula
avatar
Joined: 25 Jul 2020
Last visit: 07 Feb 2021
Posts: 40
Own Kudos:
17
Given Kudos: 109
Posts: 40
Kudos: 17
Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property 26 Sep 2020, 13:24
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AndrewN
adkikani
AjiteshArun VeritasKarishma MentorTutoring

Could you validate below approach:

Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property tax increases, California has come more and more to rely on personal income taxes for its revenues; income taxes have increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to 48 percent by 2002.

Quote:
A) have increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to 48 percent by 2002
Why do we need present perfect? The highlighted portion and the noun: income taxes suggest that we need a point of time
event in past.

Quote:
E) increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to 48 percent by 2002
Simple past tense: increased matches apt. :)
Hello, adkikani. I see no problem with your approach above. In fact, I really like the question you ask about (A), Why do we need present perfect? Whenever you encounter extra words, whether those words surround the verb tense, modifiers, and so on, you want to ask yourself such a question. In this case, we have a comparison within a set span of years, from 1962 to 2002, and even though the main clause uses the present perfect in California has come..., there is no compelling reason to shift away from a simple past to describe the trend within the range of years given: increased from... in 1962 to... by 2002. If the sentence were rewritten and by were changed to since, then a present perfect tense that extended into the present would be appropriate.

- Andrew
Show more


Hey,
The prompt goes - If the action is completed but its effect are still lingering, we use present perfect.

Now, I agree, the "action of increase" did get complete in 2002.
But because of that "California has come more and more to rely", the effect is still going on, isn't it?

May be, GMAT retired this question for this confusion only !
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,502
Own Kudos:
7,511
 [1]
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,502
Kudos: 7,511
 [1]
Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property 26 Sep 2020, 14:25
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
DexterZabula
Hey,
The prompt goes - If the action is completed but its effect are still lingering, we use present perfect.

Now, I agree, the "action of increase" did get complete in 2002.
But because of that "California has come more and more to rely", the effect is still going on, isn't it?

May be, GMAT retired this question for this confusion only !
Show more
Hello, DexterZabula. The incomplete action or effect you are referring to is California relying more and more on personal income taxes for its revenues, not the action or effect of the timeframe 1962 to 2002. Regardless of what happened within that span of years, the years themselves represent the bookends of a definitive period of time. The only way we could use the present perfect with such a construct is if the latter year mentioned were understood to be the present year. Compare:

1) From 1980 to 2000, global wealth increased...

2) From 2000 to 2020, global wealth has increased...

I suspect the question was retired after having seen action many times over and tricking many a test-taker. I am sure there are questions within the current pool that test this very concept or split.

I hope that helps clarify any confusion you had. If not, I would suggest reading over the entire thread and seeing if any responses resonate with you. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew
User avatar
DanTe02
User avatar
Joined: 06 Apr 2020
Last visit: 09 Dec 2024
Posts: 121
Own Kudos:
65
Given Kudos: 70
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
Schools: Wharton '23
WE:Engineering (Energy)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Wharton '23
Posts: 121
Kudos: 65
Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property 28 Sep 2020, 06:15
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
EducationAisle , EMPOWERgmatVerbal I'd like to ask how is increased in option D/E a verb instead of a past participle modifier, Clearly I dont see How Income taxes(subject) is the doer of Increasing taxes percentage in past. This makes absolutely no sense to me and I rejected them right off the bat since semi colon implies what comes before and after should be a independent clause and I dont see no verb for Income taxes . Please Help! much appreciated :)
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
3,579
 [1]
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
 [1]
Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property 28 Sep 2020, 07:19
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Deeptanshu02
EducationAisle , EMPOWERgmatVerbal I'd like to ask how is increased in option D/E a verb instead of a past participle modifier, Clearly I dont see How Income taxes(subject) is the doer of Increasing taxes percentage in past. This makes absolutely no sense to me and I rejected them right off the bat since semi colon implies what comes before and after should be a independent clause and I dont see no verb for Income taxes . Please Help! much appreciated :)
Show more
Hi Deeptanshu02, this is no different from:

In 2020, prices of essential commodities increased.

Hope it is quite clear that above is a valid sentence and increased is a verb.
avatar
KSN27
avatar
Joined: 20 Aug 2020
Last visit: 16 Jun 2021
Posts: 21
Own Kudos:
8
Given Kudos: 114
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
Posts: 21
Kudos: 8
Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property 09 Oct 2020, 04:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
egmat
Hi Mam,
I followed your verb-ed and verbs article and has found helpful in solving many questions, but i am struck here.
Income tax increased....
Can income tax perform the action of increasing something? No!
so i thought increased is a Verb-ed modifier and went with option as it is a independent clause.
Can you please help me on this.
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
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
Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property 09 Oct 2020, 05:47
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KSN27
Income tax increased....
Can income tax perform the action of increasing something? No!
Show more
Hi KSN27,

Until you receive a more complete response: "income taxes increased" just means "income taxes went up" (that is, they did not increase something else).
User avatar
vishumangal
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jun 2015
Last visit: 22 Dec 2021
Posts: 93
Own Kudos:
49
Given Kudos: 57
GRE 1: Q158 V143
GRE 1: Q158 V143
Posts: 93
Kudos: 49
Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property 17 Oct 2020, 05:58
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi, Could anyone tell what is the verb in the second clause after semicolon. Ideally after semicolon we need a independent clause, But after semi colon I could not find many verb for the subject taxes.
As per me increased is not a verb rather its an adjective modifying taxes.
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
3,579
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property 18 Oct 2020, 05:13
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
vishumangal
As per me increased is not a verb rather its an adjective modifying taxes.
Show more
Hi vishumangal, as manvig has pointed out, increased is a verb here, and not a past participle (adjective).

Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses how to differentiate between "Simple Past Tense Verb" and "Past Participle", its application and examples in significant detail. If you or someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.
User avatar
penco
User avatar
Joined: 22 Sep 2020
Last visit: 04 Apr 2022
Posts: 73
Own Kudos:
45
Given Kudos: 40
Location: India
Schools: Kelley (A)
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V31
GMAT 2: 700 Q49 V36
GRE 1: Q166 V157
GPA: 3.4
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Kelley (A)
GMAT 2: 700 Q49 V36
GRE 1: Q166 V157
Posts: 73
Kudos: 45
Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property 23 Jan 2021, 19:15
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
generis
Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property tax increases, California has come more and more to rely on personal income taxes for its revenues; income taxes have increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to 48 percent by 2002.

A) have increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to 48 percent by 2002

B) have increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to being up to 48 percent by 2002

C) have increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962, and by 2002 were up to 48 percent

D) increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962, and by 2002 were 48 percent

E) increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to 48 percent by 2002

SC00150.02
Show more


Isn't "increased" acting as a modifier for income taxes in options D & E ?
I ended up marking A.
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]
Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property 23 Jan 2021, 21:51
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
penco
Isn't "increased" acting as a modifier for income taxes in options D & E ?
I ended up marking A.
Show more
Hi penco,

Increased is a verb there (its subject is income taxes).

You could also go through this post and this post.
avatar
gamebredfighter
avatar
Joined: 04 Mar 2019
Last visit: 23 Jun 2025
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
3
Given Kudos: 109
GMAT 1: 680 Q45 V38
GMAT 1: 680 Q45 V38
Posts: 14
Kudos: 3
Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property 17 Mar 2021, 11:52
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja could u please explain this question
User avatar
ashmit99
User avatar
Joined: 20 Feb 2019
Last visit: 09 Apr 2025
Posts: 91
Own Kudos:
38
Given Kudos: 192
Location: India
Schools: Oxford Said'25 (II) LBS '26 (A)
GPA: 3.2
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Oxford Said'25 (II) LBS '26 (A)
Posts: 91
Kudos: 38
Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property 27 May 2021, 07:33
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
generis
Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property tax increases, California has come more and more to rely on personal income taxes for its revenues; income taxes have increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to 48 percent by 2002.

A) have increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to 48 percent by 2002

B) have increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to being up to 48 percent by 2002

C) have increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962, and by 2002 were up to 48 percent

D) increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962, and by 2002 were 48 percent

E) increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to 48 percent by 2002

SC00150.02
Show more

Hello experts,

Can you please point out why we wouldn't use past perfect in option E?

I had eaten my food by the time my dad came.

Why is it that in my example we need past perfect and in option E we don't? Can you please explain what I'm missing here?


Thank you in advance!

VeritasKarishma EducationAisle
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,986
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,986
 [1]
Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property 27 May 2021, 23:58
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ashmit99
generis
Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property tax increases, California has come more and more to rely on personal income taxes for its revenues; income taxes have increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to 48 percent by 2002.

A) have increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to 48 percent by 2002

B) have increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to being up to 48 percent by 2002

C) have increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962, and by 2002 were up to 48 percent

D) increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962, and by 2002 were 48 percent

E) increased from 18 percent of the state's general fund in 1962 to 48 percent by 2002

SC00150.02

Hello experts,

Can you please point out why we wouldn't use past perfect in option E?

I had eaten my food by the time my dad came.

Why is it that in my example we need past perfect and in option E we don't? Can you please explain what I'm missing here?


Thank you in advance!

VeritasKarishma EducationAisle
Show more

You need past perfect to show a state or event in the past prior to another time/event in the past.
She had never cooked pasta before yesterday.
A time in the past - yesterday
Event prior to that - cooked pasta

In our original sentence, the "increase" (the event) happened over period of time in the past (from '62 to '02). We don't need past perfect for it. There is no prior event/state here. There is only one action (increase) which happened over this period.

Also check:
https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2015/0 ... questions/
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
3,579
 [1]
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
 [1]
Partly as a result of Proposition 13, which severely limits property 28 May 2021, 02:35
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ashmit99

Can you please point out why we wouldn't use past perfect in option E?

I had eaten my food by the time my dad came.

Why is it that in my example we need past perfect and in option E we don't? Can you please explain what I'm missing here?
Show more
Hi Ashmit, you ask a very good question.

Generally the presence of by in a sentence is indeed a prominent indicator that past perfect is likely to be the correct usage. This sentence is a case in point.

While the sentence under consideration also uses by, the intent of the sentence is just to state the following:

<something> increased from x% to y% between 1962 and 2002.

Since we are just talking about something that happened between two specific times in the past, simple past is an appropriate usage.

p.s. On a brighter note, no option uses a past perfect. So, this isn't something that you have to take a call on.
   1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts