Public Health SC

[RonPurewal]

remember—
DO NOT 'make your own versions' of GMAC's sentences.
really.
don't do it.

the GMAT only tests 1-2% of the things that can actually go wrong with english sentences (and even that may be an overestimate).
when random users try to 'edit' these sentences, the result is almost always inferior or incorrect—for reasons that the GMAT doesn't test.

making your own examples is good, but they should be...
...1/ your own examples,
...2/ SIMPLE examples, each illustrating only ONE concept (that is actually tested on this exam).

as far as the official problems are concerned, the given answer choices should be challenging enough already.
(:


__


that tense doesn't work here—but, if the exam tests tense differences, they are going to be much less subtle / bigger differences than that.

[JustinCKN]

"Have led" would mean concerns continued till today, whereas the objective of the sentence is that there were concerns during the 1800's.

Concerns are not there anymore because these concerns led to the construction of sewers.

So a simple "led" with do. We don't need "have led" here. So that's how i eliminated B

"Led to the construction" doesn't continue into the present. It continued up to the time of construction.

If you write "Concerns about ___ have led to the construction of Thing X", then "the construction of Thing X" must be something that's going on NOW.

Hi Ron:
I cite the examples from your previous post:

Type 1/
If it's a point thing, then "has/have VERBed" means ...
... it happened,
... it's somehow relevant to the present.

E.g.,
People who have graduated from high school usually find employment much more easily than people who have not.
They've graduated (at any time). We don't know when"”maybe yesterday, maybe 40 years ago.

according to the example above ,

1. "have led to "would not necessarily means that concerns continued till today, as birlaka means.
2. the construction of Thing X" may be something that is in the past. Only the EFFECT of the construction can is relevant to the Present.
Can I comprehend the meaning in this way?

[RonPurewal]

...but there's no reasonable argument that "led to the construction of sewers" is still relevant to the present.

the EXISTENCE of the sewers themselves might have a direct impact on today's situation, but, "X led to the construction of Y"—where X and Y are both historical events—absolutely cannot.

analogy:
this is like hearing a married guy say, "i knew she was the right girl for me when she did X".
this is a past observation. even if the two are still married, there's no possible argument for writing this as "have known".

[JustinCKN]

...but there's no reasonable argument that "led to the construction of sewers" is still relevant to the present.

the EXISTENCE of the sewers themselves might have a direct impact on today's situation, but, "X led to the construction of Y"—where X and Y are both historical events—absolutely cannot.

analogy:
this is like hearing a married guy say, "i knew she was the right girl for me when she did X".
this is a past observation. even if the two are still married, there's no possible argument for writing this as "have known".

Hi
Ron:
According to your analysis, should I comprehend in this way:
even if choice B and C without the fixed past date " between 1876 and 1904", I cannot use the structure " Concerns about public health have led to to the construction of three separate sewer systems".

Sorry to ask one more question.
Thanks.
JustinCKN.

[RonPurewal]

that would work if the construction is happening right now. otherwise, it doesn't work.