Difference in meaning

[JbhB682]

Hi - just curious, what is the difference in meaning between the two :

Veronica travelled around the world (Simple past)
vs.
Veronica has travelled around the world (Present perfect)

[JbhB682]

Is it perhaps, in the 1st case

- She travelled around (says 50 years ago) and is no longer travelling today

vs

In the second case
- She travelled around (says 50 years ago) and is still travelling today ?

[JbhB682]

This is what the Manhattan Book says about the 2nd case

In this case, you are making a statement about Veronica today (it is true today that she has travelled all over the world)

[esledge]

The difference is subtle. The past tense is for a specific time in the past, and we use past tense when the action is completed. So, when we use the past tense, we often also say when.

Veronica traveled around the world after she quit her stressful job. (Simple past with a modifier indicating exactly when in the past)

The present perfect is used for two different scenarios: either something started in the past and is still happening now or the action made a new "truth" that is still true. For the former, a modifier is often used to indicate how long the action's been going on.

Veronica has been traveling around the world for 3 weeks. (The traveling started 3 weeks ago and is still going on.)

Veronica has been to Italy. (She went to Italy in the past, and she's not still there, but it's still true that she once went.)
Veronica has passed the test. (She passed the test in the past, but it's still true that she passed.)

[JbhB682]

Thank you Emily for replying.

I think my struggle is to understand what is the subtle difference between simple past vs past perfect without time stamps.

Past perfect with NO time stamp : Veronica has passed the test.
Interpret : She passed the test in the past, but it's still true that she passed.

Simple Past tense with NO time stamp : Veronica passed the test
Is this to be interpreted as she passed the test in the past but as of today (March 18th 2021) -- that very same test that she passed in the past, perhaps is no longer true -- perhaps it would found out she cheated on that very exam test and thus that very test she once passed, it is no longer true today

[esledge]

So first, you are asking about Present Perfect (not past perfect) vs. Simple past. The way I keep the names straight is that present perfect has a helping verb (has/have) that would be present tense on its own and past perfect has a helping verb (had) that would be past tense on its own.

Past perfect with NO time stamp : Veronica has passed the test.
Interpret : She passed the test in the past, but it's still true that she passed.

Correct interpretation, though this is present perfect.

Simple Past tense with NO time stamp : Veronica passed the test
Is this to be interpreted as she passed the test in the past but as of today (March 18th 2021) -- that very same test that she passed in the past, perhaps is no longer true -- perhaps it would found out she cheated on that very exam test and thus that very test she once passed, it is no longer true today

On this one, you are only right on the first part (she passed the test in the past), but it is not (necessarily) the case that it is no longer true.

In some cases, the two tenses are too close to call, really. The GMAT would never make you choose between these two examples...

The editor has found 25 errors in your most recent draft.
The editor found 25 errors in your most recent draft.

...because the difference in meaning is so subtle, both meanings are reasonable, and how are you supposed to know what the intended meaning was? Either way, the errors were there, and the editor found them.

It might help to note that these are not mutually exclusive tenses (as simple past and simple future are, for example), but rather tenses that can have some overlap in meaning: in both simple past and present perfect, something happened in past. But present perfect adds the extra meaning that the action is still occurring or still true.