GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

 It is currently 28 May 2020, 22:06

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

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

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

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 02 Sep 2016
Posts: 625
Re: Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not comi  [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 Sep 2017, 02:08
Errors:
1) Until is a time marker and thus cannot be used with (just) a noun.
2) 'no prime ministers not coming from a landed family' means that all prime ministers before Disraeli were from a landed family.
This can be made more concise as the extra words do not add much value to the sentence as a whole.

A) Incorrect
B) Same errors and had had is a past perfect construction. The sentence is talking about a fact. The event that Great Britain had PMs coming from a landed family and the event that Disraeli was the first PM who did not come from the same background are not related (I think).
Sequencing is needed when Event 2 cannot happen without event 1 or event 1 will have to take place for event 2 to occur.

Another error here is the use of the wrong tense 'have not come'. It is just a fact and way in the past. Therefore I don't think we need to use this.

C) Same errors

D) Correct

E) Incorrect
It was only in 1868 and it was not until 1868 are different as they convey different meaning. According to the first one, the event took place IN 1868 but according to the second one, the event took place in 1868 or may be after that.

Also Disraeli here looks like a place. Not correct.

Let me know if there are any errors in this post.
VP
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 1369
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
GMAT 5: 650 Q48 V31
GMAT 6: 600 Q38 V35
GMAT 7: 710 Q47 V41
GPA: 3
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not comi  [#permalink]

Show Tags

Updated on: 26 Mar 2019, 19:36
Wow I actually first answered this question back in 2017 !

See post below.
_________________
Here's how I went from 430 to 710, and how you can do it yourself:

Originally posted by dcummins on 14 Nov 2017, 23:46.
Last edited by dcummins on 26 Mar 2019, 19:36, edited 1 time in total.
Intern
Joined: 28 May 2015
Posts: 36
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q51 V34
GPA: 4
Re: Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not comi  [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 Jan 2018, 02:01
Option D uses em dash for enclosing an appositive phrase
.... that GB had a prime minister - Disraeli - who didn't come .....

Now here em dash has been used to emphasize the name of PM {Until Mr. Disraeli became...something like} but still its usage is as a non-essential modifier and can be enclosed in commas.

As per MGMAT SC guide dash is a flexile punctuation and can be used as emphatic comma, semicolon, or colon. Its usage is more flexible than colon as dash can be used to restate or explain an earlier part of the sentence. Unlike the colon. the dash does not need to be immediately preceeded by the part needing explanation.

So, I enclose it in commas we can certainly see

.... that GB had a prime minister , Disraeli , who didn't come .....

that who is modifying Prime minister not Disraeli

R.
Intern
Joined: 28 Dec 2017
Posts: 25
Re: Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not comi  [#permalink]

Show Tags

10 Feb 2019, 03:16
I do have a question regarding option "C".
Explanations of OG suggested that the present- perfect tense (have not come) is inappropriate after the past tense (were) in this context.
Whether it is grammatically correct to use multiple tenses in a single sentence or the OG explanation is wrong ?

Please have a look on the below given Example
"I have heard that Mona left Manchester this morning, and has already arrived in London, where she will be for the next three weeks."

Here, we have present perfect tense, simple past tense and simple future tense all in the same sentence, but they all make sense together to create a logical sequence of events.

Need some guidance from the Experts GMATNinja sayantanc2k
Intern
Joined: 28 Dec 2017
Posts: 25
Re: Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not comi  [#permalink]

Show Tags

10 Feb 2019, 03:16
1
I do have a question regarding option "C".
Explanations of OG suggested that the present- perfect tense (have not come) is inappropriate after the past tense (were) in this context.
Whether it is grammatically correct to use multiple tenses in a single sentence or the OG explanation is wrong ?

Please have a look on the below given Example
"I have heard that Mona left Manchester this morning, and has already arrived in London, where she will be for the next three weeks."

Here, we have present perfect tense, simple past tense and simple future tense all in the same sentence, but they all make sense together to create a logical sequence of events.

Need some guidance from the Experts GMATNinja sayantanc2k
VP
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 1369
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
GMAT 5: 650 Q48 V31
GMAT 6: 600 Q38 V35
GMAT 7: 710 Q47 V41
GPA: 3
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
Re: Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not comi  [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Mar 2019, 19:35
Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not coming from a landed family.

Split 1 - Double Negatives
(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

E - Weird Tense makes the sentence awkward and meaning isn't clear
(E) It was only in 1868 and Disraeli that Great Britain had one of its prime ministers not coming
Only in 1868 AND Disraeli - Implies there are two separate events that led to the first non-landed PM.
Gerund "coming" - no verb for prime ministers

D corrects the above
(D) It was not until 1868 that Great Britain had a prime minister—Disraeli—who did not come
_________________
Here's how I went from 430 to 710, and how you can do it yourself:
CEO
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 3275
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not comi  [#permalink]

Show Tags

27 Mar 2019, 00:59
Smitc007 wrote:
Whether it is grammatically correct to use multiple tenses in a single sentence or the OG explanation is wrong ?
There is nothing inherently wrong in using multiple tenses in a sentence.

However, that doesn't mean that we can use any tense we want in any sentence. This sentence talks about Disraeli, and the Prime Ministers before him. Given that the sentence connects Disraeli to 1868, we can safely say that all the other PMs must have come to power even earlier than that. Option C drops the present perfect have not come into this situation, and that's why it is incorrect in this case.
_________________
Intern
Joined: 14 Jan 2020
Posts: 14
Re: Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not comi  [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Feb 2020, 21:57
In the option D ;
is who not modifying Disraeli and not the prime minister
Re: Until 1868 and Disraeli, Great Britain had no prime ministers not comi   [#permalink] 26 Feb 2020, 21:57

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 27 posts ]