gauravsirohi93 wrote:
I was confused by this question, so I used grammar only when formulating my response. In the underlined portion, we can see the phrase 'for weeks,' which serves as a time expression, indicating that a perfect tense should be used. I'm not delving into which specific perfect tense should be employed; I'm solely focusing on the need for a perfect tense. Only options A and D contain a perfect tense, specifically the present perfect tense. Now, there is a distinction between 'because of' and 'due to' in options A & D. I attempted to replace 'due to' with 'caused by,' but it didn't make sense. Therefore, I believe option A is the correct answer.
Is my thought process correct? I usually don't attempt questions in this manner, but I just want to confirm if my logic for this question is accurate.
Mostly!
"Due to" is definitely incorrect here, because there's no noun it could logically modify, so your explanation is spot-on for that part.
And you're right that the logic of the sentence requires the present perfect tense, but it's not true that we'd always use it when we see a phrase such as "for weeks" or "for years."
If, for instance, Tim bullied classmates and routinely shot rubber bands at puppies between 1997 and 2003, but later reformed his terrible behavior, we'd write,"Tim
was a jerk for years."
But if the jerky behavior started in 2018 and was ongoing, we'd write, "Tim
has been a jerk for years." So context matters.
In this case, it's pretty clear that the analysts began making the predictions in the past -- the rate raises have been going on since February -- and that these prediction were still ongoing, because the analysts were anticipating future raises in November.
That's why we need the perfect tense here.
The takeaway: don't go on autopilot and assume you need the perfect tense if you see the phrase "for years." (But otherwise, excellent work!)
I hope that helps!