Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 88

[rohit21384]

Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he also won the loyalty of its citizens: the invading Danes were well aware of this weakness and used it to their advantage in 893.
(A) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he
this option is incorrect.

Ron

are following sentence correct on gmat or should be used them only in informal situations:

1) just because X did something did not mean
2) Just because he thinks it a good idea doesn't mean it's a good idea.
3) Just because it's new doesn't mean people will notice it
4) Just because we know how to make things doesn't guarantee that we know what those things will do to us.


Or it has to be of following type (sub-ordinate clause followed by main clause):
just because you see room for improvement in an answer choice, do not assume that it cannot be the best among the five choices.
Also, some where I read that we cannot have a clause starting with "because" as a part of noun phrase.

[RonPurewal]

are following sentence correct on gmat or should be used them only in informal situations:

1) just because X did something did not mean
2) Just because he thinks it a good idea doesn't mean it's a good idea.
3) Just because it's new doesn't mean people will notice it
4) Just because we know how to make things doesn't guarantee that we know what those things will do to us.

no, those are all wrong.

all of these are wrong for exactly the same reason: they all try to use "because + subject + verb" as a subject. that is not ok.

Or it has to be of following type (sub-ordinate clause followed by main clause):
just because you see room for improvement in an answer choice, do not assume that it cannot be the best among the five choices.

that's the idea. of course, you're using an imperative (a second-person command) as an example; ALL sentences on the gmat are in the third person, so you won't see that type of sentence.

"because" is used in the same way, grammatically, as are things like "even though": it's a subordinating conjunction. it has to be used in front of a clause, and then this construction (because + clause) must be attached to another clause (the main clause).

[vietmoi937]

pls help

Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he also won the loyalty of its citizens: the invading Danes were well aware of this weakness and used it to their advantage in 893.
(A) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he
(B) The fact that King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he had

I agree that B is best.

I agree that "had occupied and fortified " and "had won" happen before a past action and should be in past perfect. but I do not understand why past perfect can go with adverb showing spedific past time (886). I think that adverb showing specific past time must go with past simple tense.

pls , explain this point. Thank you

[jlucero]

pls help

Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he also won the loyalty of its citizens: the invading Danes were well aware of this weakness and used it to their advantage in 893.
(A) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he
(B) The fact that King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he had

I agree that B is best.

I agree that "had occupied and fortified " and "had won" happen before a past action and should be in past perfect. but I do not understand why past perfect can go with adverb showing spedific past time (886). I think that adverb showing specific past time must go with past simple tense.

pls , explain this point. Thank you

If you didn't know it before, now you do. It's 100% acceptable to say: I had learned karate in 2000, but didn't need to use it until 2005. With longer sentences (like the OG example), proper verb usage helps to clarify when events took place, even when there are already time markers present.

[ashish-mohan]

Hi Joe, should it not be the other way round:

I learned karate in 2000, but had not used it until 2005.

Is this sentence wrong?

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

No, that example is incorrect. When we use simple past and past perfect together, the past perfect indicates the earlier action. For example, "when we arrived, they had eaten dinner". However, if the order of actions is clear already, then we don't need to use the past perfect. From your example, we could just say, "I learned karate in 2000, but didn't use it until 2005."