Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 05:47 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 05:47
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 
555-605 Level|   Idioms/Diction/Redundancy|   Meaning/Logical Predication|   Verb Tense/Form|                        
User avatar
Sneha2021
User avatar
Joined: 20 Dec 2020
Last visit: 10 Jun 2025
Posts: 314
Own Kudos:
38
 [1]
Given Kudos: 522
Location: India
Posts: 314
Kudos: 38
 [1]
Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not comi 29 Oct 2021, 04:14
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Moumita9

In D, "that" act as a connector and not a modifier
"That" is connecting 2 clause (CL1 - It was not until 1868, CL2 - that Great Britain had a prime minister—Disraeli—who did not come
IC - It was not until 1868
DC - that Great Britain had a prime minister—Disraeli—who did not come
That’ merely joins the dependent clause to the independent clause, so ‘that’ behaves as just a connector

There is no noun "that" can modify because "that" cannot modify 1868 and present more info.

Example-They are playing with the ball that they bought from the shop
In above example, "that" is modifying ball because it is presenting more info about the ball.

Moumita9
Hi E-gmat,

Could you please let me know the function of 'that' in option D. Is it acting as a connector or as a modifier?
I felt 'that' is not correct in option D and should have been 'when'.
'It was not until 1868 when Great Britain.....'
Please help me clear my doubt

Moumita
Show more
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
Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not comi 29 Oct 2021, 04:59
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
Attachments

Avatars of that.pdf [245.5 KiB]
Downloaded 70 times

avatar
jlo1234
avatar
Joined: 27 Aug 2021
Last visit: 18 Dec 2022
Posts: 16
Given Kudos: 7
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V33
GMAT 2: 690 Q48 V36
GMAT 3: 710 Q47 V41
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 3: 710 Q47 V41
Posts: 16
Kudos: 0
Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not comi 13 Dec 2021, 20:54
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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!
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]
Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not comi 13 Dec 2021, 23:54
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jlo1234
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!
Show more
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).
avatar
jlo1234
avatar
Joined: 27 Aug 2021
Last visit: 18 Dec 2022
Posts: 16
Given Kudos: 7
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V33
GMAT 2: 690 Q48 V36
GMAT 3: 710 Q47 V41
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 3: 710 Q47 V41
Posts: 16
Kudos: 0
Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not comi 14 Dec 2021, 00:03
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AjiteshArun
jlo1234
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).
Show more

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.
User avatar
Dinesh654
User avatar
Joined: 08 Jun 2021
Last visit: 11 Aug 2024
Posts: 155
Own Kudos:
9
Given Kudos: 217
Status:In learning mode...
Location: India
GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27
Posts: 155
Kudos: 9
Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not comi 07 May 2022, 05:52
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
MartyTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Last visit: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 3,476
Own Kudos:
5,579
 [2]
Given Kudos: 1,430
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 3,476
Kudos: 5,579
 [2]
Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not comi 07 May 2022, 06:42
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
dcoolguy
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
Show more
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).
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,502
Own Kudos:
7,511
 [2]
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,502
Kudos: 7,511
 [2]
Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not comi 07 May 2022, 06:49
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
dcoolguy
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
Show more
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.

Quote:
Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not coming from a landed family.

A. Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not coming
B. Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had had no prime ministers who have not come
C. Until Disraeli in 1868, there were no prime ministers in Great Britain who have not come
D. It was not until 1868 that Great Britain had a prime minister - Disraeli - who did not come
E. It was only in 1868 and Disraeli that Great Britain had one of its prime ministers not coming
Show more
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.

Quote:
B. Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had had no prime ministers who have not come
C. Until Disraeli in 1868, there were no prime ministers in Great Britain who have not come
Show more
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:

Quote:
D. It was not until 1868 that Great Britain had a prime minister - Disraeli - who did not come
E. It was only in 1868 and Disraeli that Great Britain had one of its prime ministers not coming
Show more
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:

Quote:
A. Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not coming
D. It was not until 1868 that Great Britain had a prime minister - Disraeli - who did not come
Show more
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
User avatar
Dinesh654
User avatar
Joined: 08 Jun 2021
Last visit: 11 Aug 2024
Posts: 155
Own Kudos:
9
Given Kudos: 217
Status:In learning mode...
Location: India
GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27
Posts: 155
Kudos: 9
Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not comi 07 May 2022, 07:02
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AndrewN
dcoolguy
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
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.

Quote:
Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not coming from a landed family.

A. Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not coming
B. Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had had no prime ministers who have not come
C. Until Disraeli in 1868, there were no prime ministers in Great Britain who have not come
D. It was not until 1868 that Great Britain had a prime minister - Disraeli - who did not come
E. It was only in 1868 and Disraeli that Great Britain had one of its prime ministers not coming
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.

Quote:
B. Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had had no prime ministers who have not come
C. Until Disraeli in 1868, there were no prime ministers in Great Britain who have not come
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:

Quote:
D. It was not until 1868 that Great Britain had a prime minister - Disraeli - who did not come
E. It was only in 1868 and Disraeli that Great Britain had one of its prime ministers not coming
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:

Quote:
A. Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not coming
D. It was not until 1868 that Great Britain had a prime minister - Disraeli - who did not come
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
Show more

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 :D

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
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,502
Own Kudos:
7,511
 [2]
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,502
Kudos: 7,511
 [2]
Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not comi 07 May 2022, 09:26
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
dcoolguy
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 :D

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
Show more
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
User avatar
Dip050701
User avatar
Joined: 02 Jun 2021
Last visit: 05 Apr 2024
Posts: 36
Own Kudos:
7
Given Kudos: 34
Location: India
Schools: ISB '25
GPA: 2.77
Schools: ISB '25
Posts: 36
Kudos: 7
Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not comi 08 Dec 2022, 23:30
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AjiteshArun Can you please explain why option D is correct and what is the intended meaning of the sentence.
User avatar
zoezhuyan
User avatar
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Last visit: 11 Nov 2024
Posts: 418
Own Kudos:
94
Given Kudos: 147
Posts: 418
Kudos: 94
Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not comi 23 Jul 2023, 22:56
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
dear avigutman,
AndrewN,
MartyTargetTestPrep ,

do you guys think it should be "there was no prime ministers " in C rather than "there were..."?
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
188 posts