Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not comi

In option C, I saw few mentioned Modifier Error since who is modifying UK instead of PMs. Is it correct?

From my point of view, Who is modifying PMs because "IN UK" acts as a modifier for PMs. Can anyone clarify this point?

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).

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.


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.


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:


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:


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