The people of the ancient Near East believed that the Earth’s dry land

Dear srinjoy28 and gmatter0913,
To be honest, this question has gone through several revisions internally, making the differences much more clear between right and wrong answers. I am no longer super-happy about the version that is posted here.

Technically, the issue is sequence of tenses, which governs tense rules in indirect speech. You can read the rules here.
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/sequence-o ... orrection/

The difference between (D) and (E) in this version is too slight and nit-picky to be a good GMAT question. Here's version (D)
The people of the ancient Near East believed that the Earth’s dry land first had appeared when the Creator had separated the “water above” from the “water below”, and that there was another ocean in the sky, above the firmament.
The people with these beliefs are in the past, which is why "believed" is in the past tense. Anything that was a past event from their perspective should be in the past perfect in indirect speech. Both "appeared" and "separated" are in the past of the people who had these beliefs; therefore, both these verbs should be in the past perfect tense.
By contrast, the existence of the second ocean, above the firmament, would have been a present event for the folks who had these beliefs. In other words, if we went back in a time machine and interviewed them, they would say, "God separated the waters and dry land appeared a long time ago, but right now, as we speak, there's another ocean up there above the firmament." Anything that is present tense for the people who held those beliefs must be in the simple past tense in indirect speech. That's why there's a tense difference between the first two verbs and the last.

You see, the funny thing is --- if multiple events happen at different times, but all in the past for the speaker or for the person who held the beliefs, then all of those events at different times, have the same tense: past perfect. This much is the same as any ordinary use of past perfect --- if there is a series of past events, and we are comparing all the earlier ones to the most recent, then the most recent is in the past, and all those previous events at different times are lumped into the past perfect.
By the time Michelangelo painted the Last Judgement, he has already done X, had carved Y, and had painted Z.
Those events, X, Y, and Z might be separated by decades, but they are all in the past with respect to the main focus, the Last Judgement.

Furthermore, the action of "separating" and the action of "appearing" --- did they really happen at different times? or were they, for all intents and purposes, simultaneous? Did dry land appear the moment that the waters were separated?? Of course, for this, we would have to have a detailed understanding of the philosophical worldview involved. I point out, though, it's at least possible that these two are simultaneous, which is another good reason for them to have the same tense as each other.

So, those are technical reasons why (D) is better than (E), though once again, we have revised this question a few times, and I am no longer happy to this earlier unrevised version.

Mike
_________________

Well, that's a bit simplistic, because sentences can be considerably more complicated than those you quoted. For example,
While he was still a student, and before he had published any significant papers, Einstein began to ponder the ideas that lead to Relativity.
Notice, there we have a comma + "and" construction, but it joins two subordinate clauses, not two independent clauses. It's true that "and" links things in parallel, so it would not link one subordinate clause to one independent clause --- it would have to link like-to-like. In my sentence at the top of this thread, the two subordinate "that"-clauses are linked by the word "and."
It's absolutely true that you can't just stick two independent clauses next to each other separated by a comma splice ----
I ate breakfast, I went to school.
That's a run-on sentence. See
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/run-on-sen ... questions/
It's absolutely true that, to avoid a run-on sentence, you need to join two independent clauses with the word "and" as well as a comma. BUT, from that, you cannot conclude that all clauses joined by "and" + comma have to be independent. In more complicated sentences, you can join two subordinate clauses by "and" + comma as well.
Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Magoosh Official Explanation:

Here, we have an interesting variant on indirect speech, a “that”-clause about belief. Both of the first two verbs, to appear and to separate, refer to actions that occurred at the Creation of the World, presumably a past event for anyone speaking about it. In indirect speech, these both should be in the past perfect, “had appeared” and “had separated“. Only (D) has both of these.

The last verb, a form of the verb to be, describes a current condition of the world (at least in this ancient worldview), so this would have been a present tense verb to anyone speaking about it, and in indirect speech, present becomes past, so this should be “there was“, which is correct in both (D) & (E).

Choice (A) has the past “appeared” with the present perfect “has separated” for two events that presumably were simultaneous. Similarly, choice (C) also mismatches the tenses, using the past perfect “had appeared” with the present perfect “has separated.” These cannot be correct.

Choice (B) inexplicably has the past progressive for the verb "was separating", even though there is no reason to emphasis the continuous nature of this past action. Similarly, the hypothetical “would be” is not consistent with the rest of the logic: these ancient people belief something that they thought was really the case, not something hypothetical and speculative. The “would be” would be true in a contrary-to-fact conditional statement: “If what these ancient people believed were true, then there would be another ocean …” This cannot be correct.

Choice (E) makes the strange choice of using the present perfect for “has appeared”, but then makes a huge mistake. The GMAT does not like the structure “with” + [noun] + [participial phrase], and this is what this choice has. This choice is incorrect.

The only possible answer is (D).

From Sequence of Tenses on GMAT Sentence Correction
_________________

Dear Ty,
The difference here is not the difference between two valid grammatical constructions with different meanings. Rather, it is the difference between what is correct and what is not correct. When folks are not clear on the rules of grammar, as is often the case in colloquial conversation, all sorts of unintended meanings can arise.

You have to be clear on the sequence of tenses rules. The "believing" is in the past, so anything that those past believers would have considered true in their present would be indicated by the simple past tense, and anything that those past believers considered already done and part of their past would be indicated by the past perfect.

1) People believed that there was another ocean in the sky = If we asked those past people, they would have said, "There's an ocean in the sky right now."
2) People believed that there had been another ocean in the sky = If we asked those past people, they would have said, "Once, there was an ocean in the sky, but that's no longer the case."
3) People believed that there is another ocean in the sky = grammatically incorrect and therefore meaningless
For #3, the statement is meaningless in and of itself, but we can surmise that the person who said that was trying to say #1, as this is identical to a mistake pattern in colloquial English.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Good day Mike,
I have little problem with this SC question. I marked option E, thinking the structure as 2 separate events, with past perfect <had separated the “water above” from the “water below”, >,,,,and simple past < that there was....>...
I don't understand, why we need "had appeared", in option D, instead of simply "appeared", as in option E...
Thanks in advance...

Dear Justluck04,
Hmm. First of all, the structure "had been believing" -- the past perfect progressive --- I can't think of any situation in which that would be correct. In general, we will use the present tense or the past tense for "believe", but unless we are contrasting the action of "believing" to some other action or event. ("Before Galileo turned his telescope on the heavens, people had believed that ...") If we are talking about people in the present time doing the believing, we use the present tense. If we are talking about people in the past doing the believing, we use the past tense. In ordinary descriptions of beliefs, those are the only tenses we need for the word "believe."

Now, let's talk about what the people believe. I had a bit of trouble following your scheme. Here's how I would present it.

Case #1:
In 1800, people said, "We believe there are ghosts in town."
We would say: "Those people in 1800 believed that there were ghosts in town."

Case #2:
In 1800, people said, "We believe there were ghosts in town at one time, but they are no longer here."
We would say: "Those people in 1800 believed that there had been ghosts in town."

Case #3:
In 2014, people say, "We believe there are ghosts in town."
We would say: "These people believe that there are ghosts in town."

Case #4:
In 2014, people say, "We believe there were ghosts in town at one time, but they are no longer here."
We would say: "These people believe that there were ghosts in town."

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike is it me or are A and C identical?
If so, how can this be?
Cheers
J

Dear jlgdr,
How can this be? Every one makes mistakes: that's how! I tweaked the choices, so they are no longer identical here. I'm surprised no one caught this earlier. Within Magoosh, this questions has undergone several rounds of revisions, and looks very little like this original form at this point.
Mike
_________________

Do you know the rule that ALL verbs need to be taken one step back while changing the tense from present to past?

I believe that I went there....present
I believed that I had gone there.... past

Please see the explanation above - both the verbs "separated" and "appeared" occurs (in past) within another verb in past "believed". So both verbs "separated" and "appeared" must be in past perfect (because they occurred before the verb "believe").

https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-people-o ... l#p1770222

Compare the following:
I said that I had gone there. ( the past action "had gone" occurred within a statement in past, hence past perfect.)
Similarly,
The people believed that dry land had appeared when the creator had separated. ( the past actions "had appeared" and "had separated" occurred within a statement in past, hence past perfect.)

Your query about the word "first": The word "first" means "for the first time".

Mike, very much appreciate your in-depth explanations.

I have always been a bit shaky on when the past perfect is required vs when it can be used.

if choice (A) instead read:

(A) appeared when the Creator separated the “water above” from the “water below”, and that there was

would it be preferable over (D)?

is it valid to assume that the creation of land predated the existence of the ancient civilization?

Dear m3equals333,
I'm happy to respond.

We don't need to have an in-depth knowledge of this ancient worldview, but I think we can agree that there had to be an Earth in the first place before anyone could form a civilization on the Earth. The creation of land absolutely had to happen before anyone started farming or hunting or building houses or anything, so the formation of a civilization absolutely had to come later.

Therefore, that version of (A) is not correct. Everything associated with Creation had to be in the past of the folks who believed this worldview, because by the time they had these beliefs, they were already standing on an Earth that was already in existence. That's why both "appeared" and "separated" must be in the past perfect. I recommend reading this blog:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/sequence-o ... orrection/

Mike
_________________

I have a doubt on the usage of 'was' instead of 'is' in the option D & E for the post at the Magoosh Blog..Does it not result in a change of meaning intended?

People believed that there is another ocean in the sky
People believed that there was another ocean in the sky


Ty

Today------------------------People Believed that there was a ghost but thats not the case anymore-------------------------Ghost in the town

People believed that there had been a ghost in the town.

Today------------------------People Believe that there still is a ghost in the town.........................Ghost in town

People believed that there was a ghost in the town

Today- they don't believe in the ghost--------------------People Believe that there still is a ghost in the town.........................Ghost in town

People had been believing that there was a ghost in the town

Today-Believe in the presence of a ghost--------------------People Believe that there still is a ghost in the town.........................Ghost in town

If I have to explicitly emphasize on the past history of the event:
People believe and have been believing for quite long that there is a ghost in the town


Did I do them correctly?

ThankYou
Justluck04

Hi mikemcgarry,

Although most above have choosen the OA, some points which require a bit of clarification as the source is magoosh,



wouldn't had first appeared better than first had appeared ...
first modifies apperance and should be close to it..
also do we require 'first' at all. appeared' used in the context itself suggests 'first'. isn't it redundancy?
the present structure seems to say that there have been few appearances, the first of which occured when the creator....
Its something like..
Ronaldo first had played for x club and then for club y.

Do we really require past perfect?
doesn't believed and the structure itself suggest that the incident being believed about has been prior to the believing..
The ancients believed that the almighty created earth out of xyz..
shouldn't this be correct
why would we require to say ..
The ancients believed that the almighty had created earth out of xyz..

Regards
Chetan
_________________

Dear Chetan,
I'm happy to respond.

You are correct that, in general, we should get adverbs close to the word they are modifying. Nevertheless, one subtle rule of sophisticated writing is that it's better not to interrupt the verb. The word "not" regularly interrupts the verb, i.e. comes between the auxiliary verb and the main verb. In general, if the verb consists of multiple words, because auxiliary verbs are involves, we try not to insert other words between the auxiliary verb and the main verb if can avoid it. This is NOT tested on the GMAT, although if you notice, the OAs on the GMAT SC tend to follow this pattern.

Here, "had first appeared" would pass as perfectly correct in colloquial English, but "first had appeared" is what would appear in more sophisticated writing.

I would say that the past perfect is certainly not 100% required here. One could argue that we have a choice between the simple past and the past perfect for the verbs "to appear" and "to separate." I think the past perfect is still preferable, both because of the sequence of tenses rules, and because we went to specify that the "appearing" and "separating" happened before the the time of the final verb.

There's a choice to some extent, but what's key is that we have to be consistent. The problem with (E), for example, is that the tenses are inconsistent, "appeared" (past) and "had separated" (past perfect) for presumably simultaneous events (as suggested by "when").

The final verb has to be past tense, "was," not "is." This, and the problem with (E), isolates (D) as the only possible answer.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Hi All,


can any one please clarify the structure of sentence when it has 3 or more past related events .


for ex:- The people of the ancient Near East believed that the Earth’s dry land first appeared when the Creator separated the “water above” from the “water below”, and that there is another ocean in the sky, above the firmament.




sequence is :- Creator (1)separated, aftermath of this is land (2)appeared  and later people (3)believed that this is how happened.


I remember the earliest event has to use past perfect and later events as simple past. It is easy with 2 events ( the train had left when he reached the station ..sth like this)


but in the earlier  example which of the following is correct ?


1) had appeared when the Creator had separated the “water above” from the “water below”, and that there was


2) appeared when the Creator had separated the “water above” from the “water below”, and that there was




or if this example is not clear , please explain with any simple 3 past sequential related events that would be better to understand.
Let's say  A  happened and then B happened and at last C happened  a long ago. Do we need to use past perfect for both A and B  or  for only A ?

Thanks in advance .

You don't ever have to use perfect tenses. They are a way to add clarity to a sentence. In order to use past perfect, you must have one event that precedes another, but that doesn't mean you must use past perfect. (As an analogy, in order to buy beer, you must be 21, but 21-year-olds aren't required to buy beer--even if they act like it.)

Imagine that last year, you were in a reggae band, and the year before that, you were in a blues band. You might say "I have been in a blues band and a reggae band." There's no reason to use the past perfect here.

However, if you wanted to stress that this was not your first band experience, you might say "When I joined the reggae band, I had already been in a blues band, so I had some idea of what to expect."

So, getting back to your example, I would use the original version over 1 and 2. There's no need for past perfect because it doesn't add anything to the meaning. Naturally, the beginning of the world preceded whatever else we're talking about--that doesn't need to be clarified.
_________________

Hi Expert,

I didn't get the line of reasoning here.

IMO, D has to be the correct one over here.

My Line of thought-the action of "separated" occurred before anything else, therefore, its imperative and only logical to make that verb past perfect.
Creator had separated the 2 skies and then the Earth's dry land appeared.
Use of "first" before "Appeared" makes it a verb that took place before the verb "Believed".

Where am i wrong on this?

Request your help on this.

Hi sayantanc2k,

How about the structure used in this OG's sentence:
SC02628
In 1776 Adam Smith wrote that it is young people "the contempt of risk and the presumptuous hope of success" needed to found new businesses.

shouldn't that sentence use indirect speech as well?
kindly advise.

thank you.