household chores

[vietst]

In 1981 children in the United States spent an average
of slightly less than two and a half hours a week doing
household chores; by 1997 they had spent nearly six
hours a week.
A. chores; by 1997 they had spent nearly six hours
a week
B. chores; by 1997 that figure had grown to nearly
six hours a week
C. chores, whereas nearly six hours a week were
spent in 1997
D. chores, compared with a figure of nearly six hours
a week in 1997
E. chores, that figure growing to nearly six hours a
week in 1997

[vietst]

OA is B. Please help me explain why B is correct?

[RonPurewal]

well, as with many problems, your most successful approach to this one may be to figure out what's wrong with the 4 wrong choices, rather than what's right about the correct one.

choice a: the tense (past perfect) is weird; it implies that they had put in 6 hours of work (total) by 1997. alternatively, it implies that they had put in 6 hrslwk at some point prior to 1997, but that they hadn't maintained that level of output.

choice b is ok:
- past perfect makes sense, because the figure had finished growing by then. (note that the past perfect makes sense here, even though there isn't an explicit 'second event': in the present, we'd say the figure has grown to such-and-such a level, so, by 1997 [a past date], we'd say it had grown to such-and-such a level.
- the sentence uses the construction 'that figure', thus avoiding any weird pronoun/modifier references.

choice c: needless use of the passive voice. at best this is awkward, and at worst it makes the reader think that the 6 hours of chores were being performed by someone else (i.e., not children).

choice d: illogical - the chores themselves are 'compared with a figure of...' which doesn't make sense.

choice e: just plain bad grammar in the construction of the modifier, plus unacceptable change in meaning (this sentence, unlike the original, declares that the growth up to 6hrs/wk occurred in 1997)

[sanj]

well, as with many problems, your most successful approach to this one may be to figure out what's wrong with the 4 wrong choices, rather than what's right about the correct one.

choice a: the tense (past perfect) is weird; it implies that they had put in 6 hours of work (total) by 1997. alternatively, it implies that they had put in 6 hrslwk at some point prior to 1997, but that they hadn't maintained that level of output.

choice b is ok:
- past perfect makes sense, because the figure had finished growing by then. (note that the past perfect makes sense here, even though there isn't an explicit 'second event': in the present, we'd say the figure has grown to such-and-such a level, so, by 1997 [a past date], we'd say it had grown to such-and-such a level.
- the sentence uses the construction 'that figure', thus avoiding any weird pronoun/modifier references.

choice c: needless use of the passive voice. at best this is awkward, and at worst it makes the reader think that the 6 hours of chores were being performed by someone else (i.e., not children).

choice d: illogical - the chores themselves are 'compared with a figure of...' which doesn't make sense.

choice e: just plain bad grammar in the construction of the modifier, plus unacceptable change in meaning (this sentence, unlike the original, declares that the growth up to 6hrs/wk occurred in 1997)

also in A the use of 'they' for children indicates that in 1997 and in 1981 the children are same. I feel it awkward. Ron please comment.

[Guest]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your information.

I have question on the semicolon. Generally, semicolon is used to coordinate two independent clauses. In the above one "by 1997 that figure had grown to nearly six hours a week " can stand on its own?

Thanks,

[RonPurewal]

also in A the use of 'they' for children indicates that in 1997 and in 1981 the children are same. I feel it awkward. Ron please comment.

that's a good point; the use of 'they' does seem to suggest that the antecedent is invariant (that it's the same 'they' from '81). i hadn't thought of that.
well played.

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your information.

I have question on the semicolon. Generally, semicolon is used to coordinate two independent clauses. In the above one "by 1997 that figure had grown to nearly six hours a week " can stand on its own?

Thanks,

correct.

here's a more substantial sentence that has the same structure (i.e., having a prepositional phrase as a leading modifier)
by the end of 1923 the german mark had depreciated so much that it was more valuable as kindling than as currency.
if you understand why that sentence is ok, then you also understand why the clause in question is a standalone sentence.

[stock.mojo11]

well, as with many problems, your most successful approach to this one may be to figure out what's wrong with the 4 wrong choices, rather than what's right about the correct one.

choice a: the tense (past perfect) is weird; it implies that they had put in 6 hours of work (total) by 1997. alternatively, it implies that they had put in 6 hrslwk at some point prior to 1997, but that they hadn't maintained that level of output.

choice b is ok:
- past perfect makes sense, because the figure had finished growing by then. (note that the past perfect makes sense here, even though there isn't an explicit 'second event': in the present, we'd say the figure has grown to such-and-such a level, so, by 1997 [a past date], we'd say it had grown to such-and-such a level.
- the sentence uses the construction 'that figure', thus avoiding any weird pronoun/modifier references.

choice c: needless use of the passive voice. at best this is awkward, and at worst it makes the reader think that the 6 hours of chores were being performed by someone else (i.e., not children).

choice d: illogical - the chores themselves are 'compared with a figure of...' which doesn't make sense.

choice e: just plain bad grammar in the construction of the modifier, plus unacceptable change in meaning (this sentence, unlike the original, declares that the growth up to 6hrs/wk occurred in 1997)

While I agree with your explanation of choice C, I find similar issue with B, which seems to be OA. It can be argued that B some how seems to suggest that the number grew by itself. I picked C thinking that, even though C is in passive voice, there is no other subject in the sentence that can possibly be referred to as whose work hours increased.

Is it just lesser of the evils? If so, I have seen the argument I made for B used to eliminate answer choices. Thoughts?

[abemartin87]

Hmm,

It seems that the usage of which preposition used is really important in the meaning of the sentence.

"In 1997, John had been awarded the medal of honor"

This sentence is incorrect. Because, "in" states that the event occurred exactly at that point in time, in 1997. Therefore, the simple tense "was awarded" would suffice.

While the usage of

"By 1997, John had been awarded the medal of honor"

Indicates that we are referring to past,1997, and that, by that point, John had already received the medal of honor.

I know that prepositions such as "For, Since, and Within" indicate the usage of the present perfect IF a specific time is stated. Does anyone know which prepositions + specified time imply the usage of the past perfect??

Thank you so much!

[abemartin87]

Ron,

Is it safe to say that after the usage of the ";" that the FIRST THING one ought to do is immediately search to see if the stuff after the ";" has BOTH a SUBJECT and a VERB.

I mistakenly crossed out (B) because it started out with a preposition after the semicolon. However "that figure" is the subject "had (grown)" is the verb "to be". Hence, the stuff after the colon was a sentence and not a modifier, which has neither a subject nor verb.


by the end of 1923 [[the german mark ]] (had) depreciated so much that it was more valuable as kindling than as currency.

the german mark = Subject
had = verb

[RonPurewal]

abe, your examples dealing with the medal of honor are good.

I know that prepositions such as "For, Since, and Within" indicate the usage of the present perfect IF a specific time is stated. Does anyone know which prepositions + specified time imply the usage of the past perfect??

Thank you so much!

if you're looking for some kind of list here, i don't have one -- and i think it's unlikely that you're going to find one anywhere else, either. the reason you probably won't find any lists is that looking for a list is really a non-viable way to address this issue.
instead, what you need to do is understand the usage of these tenses, at least approximately. i'm sure that there are hundreds of different specific words that are associated with these tenses, but, if you understand the basics of how they are used, you can figure out what goes with what.

the basic deal with the perfect tenses (note, the BASIC deal -- there are going to be exceptions, idiomatic and otherwise, to every simple statement about verb tenses) is to emphasize one of two things:
1) the completion of the action described in that tense -- in a way that's relevant to the content of the sentence;
2) the idea that the action/state described in that tense is/was ongoing up until the timeframe of the sentence.

if you get the above concepts, then no memorization is necessary. for instance, in your example with "by 1997", we are emphasizing the fact that this person had already earned the medal of honor by that time (completion), and, presumably, we are speaking about some sort of context to which the medal of honor is relevant.
in the sentence with "in 1997", there is no such emphasis -- we are just describing a point action that happened in 1997.

also, there's the little matter that memorization is mostly impossible here, anyway; almost every construction that admits the present perfect will also admit the past perfect under different circumstances, and vice versa. for instance, both of the following are legitimate sentences:
for the last five years, i have been nauseated every morning.
for five whole years before i went to see dr. smith, i had been nauseated every morning.
you clearly can't just memorize that "for" goes with xxxxx tense -- but, if you understand the basic pointers above, the use of these tenses should make sense. in the first sentence, we are talking about a state that has persisted (or recurring action, depending on how you want to think about it) up to the president. in the second sentence, we are talking about a state/action that persisted up until the definite timeframe of the sentence.

[RonPurewal]

Ron,

Is it safe to say that after the usage of the ";" that the FIRST THING one ought to do is immediately search to see if the stuff after the ";" has BOTH a SUBJECT and a VERB.

well, that's a bit overly specific. the key is just to recognize that the stuff following the semicolon needs to be A SENTENCE in its own right -- and so, a fortiori, everything that is true about normal sentences must also be true about these ones.

there is some value in what you're saying here, in the sense that sentence fragments are probably more common after semicolons than they are in random sentences. but, number one, you can also encounter sentence fragments in standalone sentences (without semicolons); number two, sentences that follow semicolons can also contain literally any other issue that could arise in a standalone sentence.

[thanghnvn]

Ron, Manhantan experts, members, pls, help

I do not understand why E is wrong. In E, the act of doing, here- growing, has tense of the verb of main clause. Specifically,

E means

In 1981 children in the United States spent an average of slightly less than two and a half hours a week doing household chores . That figure GROWED to nearly six hours a week in 1997

So, what is wrong with E.

The difference between B and E is the tense. "had done" is better than "did". Why?, pls, help

[RonPurewal]

Ron, Manhantan experts, members, pls, help

I do not understand why E is wrong. In E, the act of doing, here- growing, has tense of the verb of main clause. Specifically,

E means

In 1981 children in the United States spent an average of slightly less than two and a half hours a week doing household chores . That figure GROWED to nearly six hours a week in 1997

So, what is wrong with E.

the -ING modifier doesn't just suggest that the verb tense is the same; it actually suggests that the action of the modifier occurs in the same timeframe as the stuff that is modified. so, the modifier in (e) illogically suggests that 1981 and 1997 are actually the same timeframe.

The difference between B and E is the tense. "had done" is better than "did". Why?, pls, help

the key to the use of the perfect tense here is that we are looking at a completed action, from a standpoint in the past (namely, the standpoint of 1997). for more on that sort of thing, see here:
post58397.html#p58397

[garib_daas]

Hi Ron,
Can option A be rejected because it contains 2 modifiers of time by 1997 and a week modifying the same verb had spent.
Thereby confusing the meaning.

In 1981 children in the United States spent an average
of slightly less than two and a half hours a week doing
household chores; by 1997 they had spent nearly six
hours a week.
A. chores; by 1997 they had spent nearly six hours
a week
B. chores; by 1997 that figure had grown to nearly
six hours a week
C. chores, whereas nearly six hours a week were
spent in 1997
D. chores, compared with a figure of nearly six hours
a week in 1997
E. chores, that figure growing to nearly six hours a
week in 1997