# Lesson: Verb Tense - Intro and Simple Tenses

## Comment on Verb Tense - Intro and Simple Tenses

### Brent,

Brent,

At 3:04 it wouldn't be "I will buy your dinner" insted of "I will buy you dinner"

In addition, thanks for all the great lessons!

### Great question!

Great question!

I'm pretty sure that this issue would never come up on the GMAT, since it's just commonly accepted that "I will buy you dinner" is the same as saying "I will buy a dinner for you to eat."

"I will buy your dinner" is ambiguous, because it's unclear who will eat the dinner. For example, if I say, "I will buy your car," it's unlikely that I will then give you the car.

### Hi Brent,

Hi Brent,

Could you help me with this question please:

From <https://gmatclub.com/forum/responding-to-the-public-s-fascination-with-and-sometimes-undue-alarm-80581.html>

I am ok with neither of them.

for me, the answer must be "astronomers have developed a scale for rating the likelihood that a particular asteroid or comet collides with Earth"

For me this is the same as to say:

What is the likelihood that I get into the car crash?

I haven't heard people say this: What is the likelihood that I will get into the car crash?

The same with the sentence: What is the possibility that I get 700 on my GMAT exam?
What is the possibility that I will get 700 on my GMAT exam?

But anyway, why C is wrong?

Very tough question!! (47% correct on GMAT Club is a very low success rate for a question)
Plus there doesn't seem much agreement among the experts!

(C) ...astronomers have developed a scale to rate how likely a particular asteroid or comet will be to collide with Earth.
My first reaction was that the sentence just sounds awkward.
My second reaction is that the infinitive phrase TO COLLIDE modifies WILL BE.
If we ignore that modifying phrase, we get: astronomers have developed a scale to rate how likely a particular asteroid or comet WILL BE.
This makes no sense.

(D)...astronomers have developed a scale for rating the likelihood that a particular asteroid or comet will collide with Earth.
I can't find any issues with D.

So, D is better.

Cheers,
Brent

### Hi Brent,

Hi Brent,

Thank you,

You are very responsive,

### Hi Brent,

Hi Brent,

Sorry, I didn't know under which topic this question falls, that is why I put it here. Sorry about that. Actually, be free to locate the comment under whichever section you find appropriate.

https://gmatclub.com/forum/whereas-lines-of-competition-are-clearly-defined-in-the-more-establish-36608.html

Could you please tell why B is the wrong answer, I assume that it is just worse answer than choice A but nevertheless wanted to clarify.

(B) Although the lines of competition are clearly defined in industries that are more established, they are blurred and indistinct in the Internet industry, as competing companies one day may be partners the next.

First there's a concision issue with: "industries that are more established"
Why not just write: "more established industries"?
It's the same as saying "I like apples that are red" when could say "I like big red apples"

There's also an ambiguity issue with "competing companies one day may be partners the next."
Are these competing companies going to become partners with each other or with different companies? And once they become partners will they still compete?

To better understand the issue, let's replace the adjective COMPETING with the adjective TECH.
We get: "TECH companies one day may be partners the next."
So, when these companies become partners, will they still be tech companies?

Given these issues, we can eliminate B.

Cheers,
Brent

### Hi Brent,

Hi Brent,

You made this point very nicely when you substituted "TECH" for "COMPETING",

Thank you,

### Hi Brent,

Hi Brent,

Less than 35 years after the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, their descendents, popularly known as killer bees, had migrated as far north as Southern Texas.

(A) Less than 35 years after the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil,

(B) In less than 35 years since releasing African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil,

(C) In less than the 35 years since African honeybees had been released outside Sao Paulo, Brazil,

(D) It took less than 35 years from the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, when

(E) It took less than the 35 years after the time that African honeybees were released outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, and then

Could you please explain why A is correct and B is incorrect,

How can we justify the usage of the past perfect tense in the non-modified part?

The migration happened after the release, right?

### Great question! This one is

Great question! This one is super tricky.

From the context of the sentence, we can see that "35 years after the release" gets us to a time that is still in the past. For the sake of my explanation, let's say that the honey bees were released in 1960, which means 35 years later brings us to 1995.
So, 1995 is a date in the PAST.
The sentence suggests that, BEFORE 1995, the bee's migration to Texas HAD occurred.
Does that help?
Since we have a past action that was completed before another past action, we can use the past perfect tense HAD MIGRATED.

Now let's examine the difference between answer choices A and B.

In answer choice A, the release of the bees simply happened. We're not told who released them, but we do know that it happened.
So when we get to the part of the sentence that says "THEIR descendants...." it is clear from the context of the sentence that THEIR must refer to the bees.

In answer choice B, we have "...since releasing the bees,..." So, when we get to the, after Brazil, we might stop and ask "WHO released the bees?"
The part that follows says "their descendants"
In other words, the bee's descendants released the bees.
This, of course, makes no sense.
So we can eliminate B

Does that help?

### Wow, wonderful explanation

Wow, wonderful explanation Brent,

Do you mean then if we remove "less then" from the sentence then it becomes wrong, because we can not say that it was in the past(before the 35-year span is closed):

"35 years after the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, their descendents, popularly known as killer bees, had migrated as far north as Southern Texas."

Let me elaborate on the difference between A and B,

Following your logic the following sentence is wrong?:

Less than 35 years after releasing African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, their descendents, popularly known as killer bees, had migrated as far north as Southern Texas."

and the following is correct?:

"In less than 35 years since the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, their descendents, popularly known as killer bees, had migrated as far north as Southern Texas."

### In some cases, the sequence

In some cases, the sequence of past events tells us whether or not we need to use the past present tense. That is, if we know specifically when each past events occurred, then we can be certain that past present is necessary.

However, it's also possible that the use of past present tells us when past events occurred.

Take: "35 years after the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, their descendants, popularly known as killer bees, HAD migrated as far north as Southern Texas."
Here, "HAD migrated" tells us that the migration is a past event that occurred BEFORE 35 years elapsed since the release of the bees.

Take: "Less than 35 years after releasing African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, THEIR descendants, popularly known as killer bees, had migrated as far north as Southern Texas."
The sentence is incorrect because THEIR suggests that the bees released the honey bees.

Take: "In less than 35 years since the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, their descendants, popularly known as killer bees, HAD migrated as far north as Southern Texas."
Good.

Cheers,
Brent

### Hi Brent,

Hi Brent,

I am still confused about Past Perfect usage:

For me the timeline for the original sentence looks like this↓

Less than 35 years after the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, their descendants, popularly known as killer bees, HAD migrated as far north as Southern Texas.

What is then the difference in meaning between these two sentences:

1. 35 years after the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, their descendants, popularly known as killer bees, MIGRATED as far north as Southern Texas.

0---------------------35 years----migrated-----

2. 35 years after the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, their descendants, popularly known as killer bees, HAD MIGRATED as far north as Southern Texas.

0-------------???--------35 years----???-----

### Sentence: Less than 35 years

Sentence: Less than 35 years after the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, their descendants, popularly known as killer bees, HAD migrated as far north as Southern Texas.

We have the following:
Beginning of time.....release of bees....HAD MIGRATED ....less than 35 years.....35 years later....PRESENT

In this case the past perfect tense HAD MIGRATED dictates the series of events.

"less than 35 years (after the bees release)" is an "event" that occurred in the past.
Let's let LT35YATBR = the date known as "less than 35 years (after the bees release)"
So, LT35YATBR is an event has already happened in the PAST.
BEFORE the date called LT35YATBR, the bees HAD MIGRATED.
So, the past perfect works here.

-------------------------------

Sentence: 35 years after the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, their descendants, popularly known as killer bees, MIGRATED as far north as Southern Texas.
In this case, the simple past tense MIGRATED tells us that the migration happened in the past.
Since we aren't using the past perfect tense HAD MIGRATED, this sentence suggests that exactly 35 years after their release, the bees MIGRATED.
That is, no other past events occurred between the migration and present.

We have: Beginning of time.....release of bees.....35 years later+MIGRATED....PRESENT
So, it's conceivable that the passing of 35 years and the migration occurred at roughly the same time.

-------------------------------

Sentence: 2. 35 years after the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, their descendants, popularly known as killer bees, HAD MIGRATED as far north as Southern Texas.

Beginning of time.....release of bees....HAD MIGRATED .....35 years later....PRESENT
Since the author has chosen to use the past perfect tense HAD MIGRATED, the implication is that the migration occurred BEFORE 35 years elapsed.

Does that help?

### Hi Brent,

Hi Brent,

thank you so much for your patience.

You are doing an amazing job,

So by your suggestion, I need to treat "35 years after the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paulo" as time point the same way as I would treat the phrase "in 1985"

e.g.

In 1985- the year of the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, African honeybees' descendants, popularly known as killer bees, HAD migrated as far north as Southern Texas.

In 1985- the year of the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, African honeybees' descendants, popularly known as killer bees, MIGRATED as far north as Southern Texas.

Beginning of time........1985+MIGRITED......PRESENT

BTW.

is the following sentence correct?

In 1985- the year of the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, THEIR descendants, popularly known as killer bees, MIGRATED as far north as Southern Texas. (I am worried about "their" not clearly pointing to honeybees)

or is it better to do like this↓

In 1985- the year of the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, AFRICAN HONEYBEES' descendants, popularly known as killer bees, MIGRATED as far north as Southern Texas.

Thank you again for time,

### In 1985- the year of the

In 1985- the year of the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, African honeybees' descendants, popularly known as killer bees, HAD migrated as far north as Southern Texas.

In 1985- the year of the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, African honeybees' descendants, popularly known as killer bees, MIGRATED as far north as Southern Texas.

Beginning of time........1985+MIGRATED......PRESENT

Both of the above sentences are fine.
-----------------------------------

In 1985- the year of the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, THEIR descendants, popularly known as killer bees, MIGRATED as far north as Southern Texas. (I am worried about "their" not clearly pointing to honeybees)

or is it better to do like this↓

In 1985- the year of the release of African honeybees outside Sao Paulo, Brazil, AFRICAN HONEYBEES' descendants, popularly known as killer bees, MIGRATED as far north as Southern Texas.

Both of the above sentences are fine.
Since "honeybees " is the only plural noun the precedes THEIR, we know that THEIR = HONEYBEES'

Cheers,
Brent

### Hi Brent,

Hi Brent,

I can't thank you enough for your amazing job.

I think it was one of the most useful discussions I have ever had about advance English grammar,

Thank you so much,

Good to hear!

Cheers,
Brent

### Hi Brent,

Hi Brent,

https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-an-effort-improve-the-quality-of-patient-care-dr-lydia-122298.html

Option B in this has 'seek' though I thought 'one of several clinical research projects that seeks' would be appropriate because of one->seeks but I was wrong. Can you please explain this concept?

Thanks,
Arjit Agarwal