JbhB682 Wrote:I created these semi-analogous statements so i could understand the tense issue regarding the FIRST HALF specifically in the original answer choices
Source : myself
i. A and B were as disturbing in 1950 as they will be in 2050 [same tense as option B w.r.t usage of past tense]
ii. A and B had been as disturbing in 1950 as they will be in 2050 [same tense as option D w.r.t usage of past perfect]
iii. A and B have been as disturbing in 1950 as they will be in 2050 [same tense as option E w.r.t usage of present perfect]
Q1) in option ii, given the past perfect tense, is it implying A and B were disturbing PRIOR to 1950 ?
No, because "in 1950" means
during 1950. Thus, you need some other time marker or verb (in the past but after 1950) to justify the use of past perfect at all. I tried to write an example that makes "had been" ok for 1950...but to keep the comparison to 2050, I still had to use simple past for 1950 in the comparison:
A and B
had been disturbing in the 1950's, but
were becoming less so by 1970; however, experts predict A and B will be as disturbing in 2050 as they were in 1950.
So, my advice: Don't overthink this. 1950 is in the past. 2050 is in the future. Use the corresponding tenses; don't use perfect tenses when simple tenses match the timeline. In the Eakins question, "his time" = past and "our time" = present, and that's it.JbhB682 Wrote:Q2) in option iii, given usage of present perfect tense, is it implying A and B are disturbing from 1950 to the present tense (june 8th 2021, when this post was written) ?
No, this sentence doesn't mean anything...it's just wrong. The present perfect inherently clashes with "in 1950," because "in 1950" is a finite time period, entirely in the past. It does not allow the verb to continue until today.
