Pre School

IMO B

first event stated is in 1970 (simple past)
second event is between 1970 and 1990's (as it is stated by 1990's) so should be past perfect.

opinions?

sudeep - i think you may be right. but why should btw 1970 and 1990 be past perfect? the first happened later than the second.

This is what I think:
The second event is mentioned with respect to 1990's, a time before which second event (had) occurred.

I sense a contradiction....The first event, the one that happened in 1970 CAN be in past perfect...But the second or the later event, the one that happened between 1970 to 1990 cannot be in past perfect(As explained in Manhattan SC guide)...If anybody feels otherwise, please let us know....

A looks better than the other choices

A goes for me too.
The key here is to realize that events stated in past perfect occur before events stated in simple past. since an event that occurs between 1970 and 1990 can not precede the event that occurred in 1970, B can not be the answer.

Note in A,

This number is also incorrect reference. It should be the number which correctly represents (the number of applications per year).

This number referring to 150 application per year ==> rose (150 number can't rise but the number of applications).

Also IMO:

by 1990's ==> signifies the occurrence of event in the past from now (1990's), and the event of rising occurred before the initiation of the event(1990's) ==> past perfect

any takers?

I think it is A.. no need for past perfect here .. you are mentioning the time.

I think, you have a point here...The OA unfortunately happens to be B.....

Then it that case, why is E not an option? Is it wordy compared to B, or is there some other reason to ignore E.

E misses the per year. The number of application in E I think will signify the total applications or something (not annual)

I too had chosen B.

as for the past-perfect confusion-

past perfect is used when one event has occurred before a second event

eg: She had left by the time we reached home.

....by 1990, the number had risen....

here the two events are (1) year 1990, (2) rising of the number of applications

The answer is B .. and here's why

The first part of the sentence is in the past and the next part of the sentence is in the future, relative to the past. Hence the corresponding tense 'rose' is incorrect. It has to be past participle, because the relationship is to a past event. So 'had risen' makes sense.

As far is E is concerned, the reference is to the 'number of applications per year' and not just 'the number of applications'.

The first part of sentence(In the 1970's an elite preschool in New York City had approximately 150 applications per year) is in simple past. This part has no timeline being clearly saying "IN THE 1970's".

The second part of sentence(by the 1990's, this number rose to 3000) is an independent sentence being connected by conjunction ‘AND’. This part of sentence has a timeline. By the 1990’s(the time line), the number had risen to 3000. The timeline is the justification of perfect tense in second part of sentence

Hope, it clarifies for B being answer.

The custom of using differential tenses such as simple past and past perfect arises when there are no definite time markers in the text and when the tenses themselves have to play the role of time markers, with the old one going with past perfect and the later one going with simple past.
But when clear timelines are given in the text, with no need to decide the timing of the event afresh, then the use of simple past to denote both the events is perfectly legitimate, even though the evens themselves might have occurred at two different times. The given example is a classic case of this feature.

I would therefore merrily dump B, C and E, not even going into the others aspects of them. Rejecting the illogical passive expression 'was raised’ in D, I would happily go with A

@ Daagh
I am confused. Did you mean that every sentence with time marker can be expressed in simple past rather than past perfect? I always look for time markers first and then look for events, when going for perfect tense. If it is possible, can you please provide the past tensed form for this sentence?
"By 1945, the US had been at war for several years."

Please delve into my reply and you will find that for differential use of past and past perfect, there must be two events in the first place and then those events are not marked by any timelines. Without the comparison between the two events, this whole past and past perfect use is irrelevant.

I did not mean that, every time there is a time marker, there is no need to use past perfect.

"By 1945, the US had been at war for several years." In a sentence as this in which we are considering just one issue of the US’s stint with war, what are you trying to compare with what ? Is there an event in which either something happened before or after 1945?

And how will you express the following idea?

By August 1947, India’s freedom struggle was over
or
By August 1947, India’s freedom struggle had been over?

Unless the expression ‘by 1945, the US had been at war for several years’ is a specific one to describe a kind of a
special context, I think, it flouts the tenets of grammar, in that there is no event to describe in a simple past after the 1945 event.

I request you not to assume that every sentence with timeline entails a simple past, lest you should be confused.