2001 proved to be the automaker's first losing year

[Guest]

2001 proved to be the automaker's first losing year since 1992, when the company had lost $7.4 billion, which was primarily because of almost $7 billion in accounting charges.

a)..
b)when the company had lost $7.4 billion, primarily resulting from
c)when the company lost $ 7.4 billion, primarily because of
d)which is when the company7 lost $7.4 billion, and that was primarily because of
e)which is when the company lost $7.4 billion, primarily resulting from

OA is C.

:shock: "when the company had lost $7.4 billion" refers to 1992 or 2001, how should I recognize that? and which tense should be used, past perfect tense or simple past tense?

I checked several forums and haven't got a satisfied answer.

[Guest]

no need for had lost
lost simple past tense is used when ever time is mentioned ......

[JonathanSchneider]

Great question. This "when" must refer to 1992. In general, relative clauses beginning with "wh-" words (which, when, where, etc.) will refer to the noun they are closest to. As to the tense, we use the past perfect tense for the earlier of two past actions when we need it to make the sequence clear. In this case, we have specific dates, so we do not need to use the perfect tense - the timing sequence is already clear.

[Guest]

How do you pick between B and C?
"because of" vs. "resulting from"

[kylo]

here r my thoughts -
a) antecedant to which is not clear (company or $7.4 billion).
d) & e) are out as we require "when" here since we r talking about time frames.
now its a close contest between b) & c).
i think there r two flaws in b) -
1) usage of "had" is incorrect since the statement mentions only one past event (....lost $7.4 billion....) that happened in 1992. we require two past events to justify the usage of "had".
2) "resulting in" is the correct idiom.

hence IMO C.


Thanks!

[Guest]

between B and C
"primarily resulting from" is ambigous in B. It can either be part of main sentence or adverbial modifier for "lost"

[RonPurewal]

How do you pick between B and C?
"because of" vs. "resulting from"

in my observations, "resulting from" is used only to modify nouns: the NOUN resulting from NOUN/PHRASE.

that doesn't work in this sentence.

[RonPurewal]

1) usage of "had" is incorrect since the statement mentions only one past event (....lost $7.4 billion....) that happened in 1992. we require two past events to justify the usage of "had".

yes.

more precisely, if we're going to say "had lost", we need to name another subsequent event/circumstance that either (a) ended that trend or (b) was affected by that trend.

the key is that you don't use past perfect unless you have 2 past time markers, the earlier of which has a distinct impact on, or relevance to, the later.
for instance:
i had already left home when my friend arrived at my door. --> past perfect for the first verb, because it has a bearing on the circumstances of the second one (i.e., my friend came over to find an empty apartment)
i went to the restaurant after i left home --> just use the simple past 'left' (not 'had left'), because this time my leaving home has no direct bearing on the circumstances under which i went to the restaurant.

if you're a native speaker of english, verb tense is one of the few areas in which your ear will be a reliable predictor. verb tense is, after all, saturated with meaning, and it's one of those things that we native speakers use almost flawlessly even as relatively small children.
if you're not a native speaker, then, not so much.
also, this is definitely not carte blanche to use your ear in general. on most sentence correction issues - pronouns, modifiers, spread-out subject-verb agreement, and the like - your ear will be an absolutely horrible guide.

[jessie-cn2007]

1) usage of "had" is incorrect since the statement mentions only one past event (....lost $7.4 billion....) that happened in 1992. we require two past events to justify the usage of "had".

Hi Ron,
I have a question. 2001 proved is an past event,while lost $7.4 billion happened in 1992 should use had. thus B is preferable.

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,
I have a question. 2001 proved is an past event,while lost $7.4 billion happened in 1992 should use had. thus B is preferable.

unfortunately, like pretty much all other verb tenses, the past perfect is not that simple. you can't just say that you MUST use the past perfect whenever there are two past events.

in fact, if two past events are unrelated and in sequence, the normal convention is simply to use the regular past tense twice in a row. for instance, we went to the restaurant, and then went to the show.

by contrast, the use of the past perfect usually indicates that there is some sort of important relationship between the two events. for instance, we had already gone to the restaurant when joe showed up at the house: this relationship matters, since our leaving meant that joe showed up to an empty house.

in this case, since there is no apparent relationship between 1992 and 2001, it's actually more appropriate to express both events in the normal past tense. i wouldn't say it's incorrect to use the past perfect -- it has different rhetorical implications, but could certainly be construed in a correct way -- but the double use of normal past tense is certainly also ok.

in any case, this is a non-issue in this problem, since the two choices using the past perfect have errors in their modifiers.

[taylormc00]

We can't deny that nowadays, there are a lot of automakers already. In order to figure out which car manufacturers are the most reliable, I needed to look up the most recent news to see which recalls have been taking place recently. I wound up with a really nice, brand new Scion through a site I found. It showed me the most dependable dealers in town. Within [spam deleted] you'll receive the top truck purchasing experience possible. Therefore explore [spam deleted] right now.

[tim]

keep your spam, and your questionable taste in cars, off our boards!

[AbhilashM94]

How do you pick between B and C?
"because of" vs. "resulting from"

in my observations, "resulting from" is used only to modify nouns: the NOUN resulting from NOUN/PHRASE.

that doesn't work in this sentence.

Ron,

Can you please elaborate on this with some examples?

Also what about E?

[RonPurewal]

E.g., The loneliness resulting from autism can be intense. (Autism causes social difficulties, which can lead to intense loneliness.)

[RonPurewal]

Also what about E?

What about it?