Until Rousseau no intellectual had unequivocally declared that the

I approached it this way.

Until Rousseau means that Rousseau declared after something happened or not happened. ie, a past event happened before Rousseau declared his opinion.

A past event happening before another should have "HAD" in it... Option A,C,E has it.

declaration in E is not a right word. Its better to have "declared"

Double HAD in option C is not a right delivery.

A remains. In A, the statment gives a proper delivery of idea that Until Rousseau declared, no intellectual had unequivocally(clearly) declared that the source of human evil was social conditioning.

no intellectual had unequivocally(clearly) declared is a first action. So it has a HAD in it.
Rousseau declared is a second action. So it is in simple past tense.

Please correct me if I am wrong..

No, on the contrary, A is more direct: The source of X is Y.
The following construction would be considered awkward in GMAT: X has its source in Y.

A)no intellectual had unequivocally declared that the source of human evil was
keep

B) no intellectual unequivocally declared that human evil was from a source in
need had before declared, out

C)no intellectual had unequivocally declared that human evil had its source in
"had its source in" seems wordy, out

D)no intellectual unequivocally declared that the source of human evil was
need had before declared, out

E)no intellectual had an unequivocal declaration that the source of human evil was
need a perfect tense, out

Experts, can you please help me understand why past perfect is absolutely required in this sentence?

Until Roussesu - indicates that there are events that happened before that time.. so should use of past perfect be optional?

Thank you sheolokesh Now I understand why the past perfect tense is required.

Isnt C a more direct way of saying the statement?

There's nothing wrong with the original sentence...

Until Rousseau no intellectual had unequivocally declared that the source of human evil was social conditioning.

Original sentence has the following correct usages -

1. Use of Past perfect ( With sentence involving Until )
2. Correct subject Verb agreement ( The source - Was )

Correct answer but be (A) , source in is not good in my opinion...

Hi sayantanc2k.
confused with the usage of Had.
Word "Until" is enough to show sequence of events.

Why "D" is incorrect.

For more insight into the question of past perfect usage, one may look into this
before-its-independence-in-1947-britain-ruled-india-as-a-109904.html

Until Rousseau requires use of past perfect 'had+verb' ; b,d,e are out

'its' do not have antecedent ; C is out

A is correct

Until Rousseau no intellectual had unequivocally declared that the source of human evil was social conditioning.

Pay attention to last words "social conditioning" we could eliminate B and C since "...source in social conditioning" is wrong.

"Until Rousseau" requires past perfect tense. D and E are out.

Left only A correct.


A)no intellectual had unequivocally declared that the source of human evil was --- Correct
B) no intellectual unequivocally declared that human evil was from a source in
C)no intellectual had unequivocally declared that human evil had its source in
D)no intellectual unequivocally declared that the source of human evil was
E)no intellectual had an unequivocal declaration that the source of human evil was

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.