Gowtham91
GMATNinja Please explain the difference between Option A & Option D. I am not able to understand the sequence of events in Option A, to justify the usage of "had".
When we use "had + verb" to indicate the past perfect, we're referring to an action happened before something else in the past. For example:
"By 2012, Tim had already alienated every other member of the homeowner's association by practicing outside with his Klezmer band until 2am every night."
Here, "2012" is in the past, and Tim alienated the other members of the association sometime before 2012, so the past perfect "had alienated" is appropriate here.
Now take another look at (A):
Quote:
Wendell Willkie was a Democrat so newly and casually converted to the Republican party that at the moment of his nomination he had yet to change his voter registration.
The moment of Willkie's nomination was in the past, and Willkie neglected to change his voter registration
before this past event, so "had yet to change" makes sense here.
(D), on the other hand, contains the problematic verb phrase "was yet to be changed," which suggests that this failure to change his registration didn't necessarily happen before the moment of the nomination. Does that mean they happened at the same time? That wouldn't make much sense, particularly because the "yet" suggests we're talking about an interval of time covering everything before the moment of his nomination.
Also, the passive construction "to be changed" implies that someone else might have changed Willkie's voter registration, a meaning that is confusing at best.
So while (D) doesn't necessarily have a definitive grammar error, its meaning is fuzzier and less logical than option (A), so (A) is our winner here.
I hope that helps!