Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 88

[help27]

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
(C) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he
(D) The fact that King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean that he
(E) Just because King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he

The OA is B. Can someone please tell me why C is wrong? I thought 'it' can refer to a whole phrase? also is not 'just because' a conjunctive adverb. 'The fact that' in B seems wordy

[RonPurewal]

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
(C) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he
(D) The fact that King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean that he
(E) Just because King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he

The OA is B. Can someone please tell me why C is wrong? I thought 'it' can refer to a whole phrase? also is not 'just because' a conjunctive adverb. 'The fact that' in B seems wordy

there is no proper antecedent for "it" here other than "london", which clearly doesn't make sense.
in formal english, "it" must have a SINGLE NOUN (or SINGLE nounlike word, such as a gerund) as referent. this can become an entire phrase if extra descriptive phrases (such as prepositional phrases) are added onto the NOUN, but you can't use "it" unless the NOUN is there.

yes, you could chop off "the fact" and start the sentence with "That King Alfred had...".
remember, though, that this isn't copy editing: you're not trying to optimize the sentence, but, rather, to choose the best of the existing choices. you will indeed find examples on which their best choice differs substantially from your best effort. in some cases this will happen simply because they're right and you're wrong, but in other cases you'll be able to concoct versions that are actually better than the official answer.
remember, the best of 5 choices doesn't have to be the best of all possible choices.

finally, don't forget that wordiness / concision is LAST in the hierarchy of sentence correction. you should not even begin to think about wordiness until you are absolutely done resolving all issues of grammar and clarity.

[bharri7]

Why is the answer not A?

1) "The fact that" is usually incorrect.
2) There are two past actions occuring, which would give a hint to use 'Had", but the two past actions are in two separate clauses.

[Guest]

I also thought that use of had is not correct.

Had suggests that the king had already won the loyalty before he occupied and fortified London

[Guest]

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
(C) Just because King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he
(D) The fact that King Alfred occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean that he
(E) Just because King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886, it did not mean he

In B and E, 'had occupied' makes it sound as if london was occupied and fortified at diff times. however, this is not the case? am I correct, that we can't use the past perfect in this manner? Thanks!

[tathagat]

Hi,
Could come expert pls explain how do the 2 "had" fit into the sentence?
I cannot understand the right chronological order there !
"King Alfred had occupied and fortified London in 886 did not mean that he had also won"

Thanks,

[jwinawer]

The correct answer is B, thus containing two "hads":

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

Sequence of events:

886: King Alfred occupies and fortifies London and potentially wins the loyalty of citizens
893: Danes invade

Since 893 is in the simple past (Danes WERE), both events of 886, which is prior to 893, should be in the past perfect (HAD occupied, HAD won).

-Jon

[tryingFor750p]

Ron,
you said that in C, "it" doesn't have proper antecedent.

I thought it's that amorphous form of "it"

Refer to Stacey's post; http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/post7010.html

So I'm confused

Help?

[sharok]

hi ron,
isn't there typo in the sentence?.How can two independent senteneces be joined with colon?.Although that is not underlined part,i became confused as no error goes unnoticed by u.

[RonPurewal]

Ron,
you said that in C, "it" doesn't have proper antecedent.

I thought it's that amorphous form of "it"

Refer to Stacey's post; http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/post7010.html

So I'm confused

Help?

that form of "it" is limited to being followed/described by adjectives, then infinitives (maybe with a subject): "it was difficult to do X", "...made it hard for Y to do X", etc.
note that this is stated in the post to which you've linked.

an amorphous "it" is also sometimes used to describe natural phenomena such as weather: "it's cold outside." "it was raining yesterday." etc.

this sentence doesn't fall into either of the above categories.

[RonPurewal]

hi ron,
isn't there typo in the sentence?.How can two independent senteneces be joined with colon?.Although that is not underlined part,i became confused as no error goes unnoticed by u.

it's possible to join two independent clauses with a colon, so long as the second is an explanation of the first.

it's also possible for the second part to be something other than an independent clause, such as a list or a phrase.

the only absolute stipulation is that the part coming before the colon be an independent clause. that is a constant.

see here
http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/punct/colon.html

[shobuj40]

pls

anyone (instrctor)describe what is the wrong with A

[JonathanSchneider]

Two reasons:

- first, the past perfect is preferable, as it sets up the conditions in the years prior to the Dutch invasion.
- second, if we were to use the simple past tense "occupied and foritified" we would want to use the present "does not mean" afterwards. the "meaning" that stems from a certain action should be expressed (at least in this case) in a later time frame than the original action.

[shobuj40]

Can anyone shed some light on just because useage

thanks in advance

[JonathanSchneider]

We typically use "just because" in speech to mean something like: "even though..., nevertheless..." I would consider this phrasing a bit too informal for the GMAT. However, I wouldn't make a decision on that unless I absolutely had to.