Hello All,
The explanation for Q98 in OG states that 'has been discovered' is a wrong construct since the discovery was made in the past and is not continuing. But I have read that we can use present perfect even when the action is completed, but its effect is still there. Moreover I have seen 'has been discovered' in several news articles.
For example, 'have been discovered' is used in this article of NY Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/gulf-of-mexico-turns-deadly-for-dolphins.html?_r=0
I know that some times there will be grammitical errors even in NY Times. But at the same time, OG explanations are not perfect either.
Please let me know whether I can eleminate an answer choice if it uses present perfect for discovery.
-------------------------
Thanks,
Hemant
GMAT Forum
4 postsPage 1 of 1
- HemantR606
- Students
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:16 pm
- RonPurewal
- Students
- Posts: 19744
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
Re: was discovered vs has been discovered
with a date, "has/have ___ed" is incorrect.
if you want, you can just memorize this.
on the other hand, it's good to understand the reason (at which, in fact, you are hinting already).
the point of "has/have ___ed", in the sense you've cited here, is that it doesn't matter when something happened-- it matters only that it has happened at some point.
if you want, you can just memorize this.
on the other hand, it's good to understand the reason (at which, in fact, you are hinting already).
the point of "has/have ___ed", in the sense you've cited here, is that it doesn't matter when something happened-- it matters only that it has happened at some point.
- RonPurewal
- Students
- Posts: 19744
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
Re: was discovered vs has been discovered
e.g.,
I played high school football between 1989 and 1992.
Ballard High is looking to hire a new head football coach; the school will consider only those candidates who have played high school football.
consider the difference.
in the second sentence, it's clear why the actual timeframe of the event is irrelevant: it matters only that the coaching candidates have played high-school football. it doesn't matter when they played.
I played high school football between 1989 and 1992.
Ballard High is looking to hire a new head football coach; the school will consider only those candidates who have played high school football.
consider the difference.
in the second sentence, it's clear why the actual timeframe of the event is irrelevant: it matters only that the coaching candidates have played high-school football. it doesn't matter when they played.
- RonPurewal
- Students
- Posts: 19744
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
Re: was discovered vs has been discovered
also, incidentally, the "relevant to the present" explanation doesn't fly in this problem anyway.
this problem mentions the place where the things were first discovered. by definition, that's a past event that has no direct relevance to the present.
if we want to talk about places where those things have been discovered, then that would make sense-- but in this case the "first" part is precluded. (see the post above. if the only thing that matters is whether these things have been found somewhere, then, logically, it can't be important whether they were first found there.)
this problem mentions the place where the things were first discovered. by definition, that's a past event that has no direct relevance to the present.
if we want to talk about places where those things have been discovered, then that would make sense-- but in this case the "first" part is precluded. (see the post above. if the only thing that matters is whether these things have been found somewhere, then, logically, it can't be important whether they were first found there.)
4 posts Page 1 of 1