| Present simple, verb "to be" - Subject pronouns | What does field correspondent mean? Is it synonym with war correspondent? |
Message |
Author |
 #1 (permalink) Fri Jul 17, 2009 15:46 pm Past simple vs Past perfect simple |
|
|
| Quote: |
Complete the preort with the past simple or past perfect simple of the verbs in brackets.
The chart shows the percentage of people aged 65 and over the U.S between 1900 and 2000. In the year 1900 just over 4% of the population 1.____(be) aged over 65. However,, by 1960 this figure 2.___(double).
The number of people aged between 75 and 84 3.___(remain) fairly steady between 1900 and 1930, making up only 1-1.3% of the population. The figure 4.___(begin) to rise more significantly in 1940 and by 1970 it 5.___(triple) to reach 3% of the population.
Although there 6.___(be) no change in the number of people aged 65-74 between 1960 and 1970, the number of people aged 75 and over 7.___(increase) during this time. By the year 2000, 12.4% of the US population 8.___(reach) the age of 65 or more, although this was slightly lower than in 1990 when it 9.___(peak) at 12.6%.
The chart shows that today people in the U.S can expect to live longer than in 1900. By the year 2000 more than 12% of the population 10.___(manage) to live to the age of 65 and over compared to only 4.1% in 1900.
|
After studying past simple and past perfect for awhile, I thought I got the idea and decided to give above question a shot. As oppose to my initial thought, I got most of them wrong and it kind of makes me confuse on the grounds that i don't think the correct answers abide the rules of corresponding tenses which I've learned. And of course, this question comes with the answers. I won't discuss no.1 as the correct answer is very clear. For no.2, according to the past simple rule, shouldn't the correct answer be in past simple tense due to the fact that the sentence is written in chronological order? In other words, the previous sentence is about year 1900 and it talks on 1960. For No.3, shouldn't that be in past perfect tense for it refers back to earlier time in a sense that it follows the sentence which talks about 1960.For no.5, I can't figure out why it is correct to use past perfect. Shouldn't that be in past simple because of the chronological nature of sentences?For no.8, why it has to be in past perfect when it is about current year? And also, why no.9 be in perfect tense as well? For no.10, the correct tense is past perfect and I don't get that either. Well, that's it for my confusion. Any explanation would be much appreciated. |
|
 Bulone
I'm here quite often ;-)
Joined: 16 May 2009
Posts: 391
|
|
|
| #2 (permalink) Fri Jul 17, 2009 20:13 pm Past simple vs Past perfect simple |
|
|
| Bulone wrote: |
The chart shows the percentage of people aged 65 and over in the U.S. between 1900 and 2000. In the year 1900 just over 4% of the population 1. was aged over 65. However, by 1960 this figure 2. had doubled.
The number of people aged between 75 and 84 3. remained fairly steady between 1900 and 1930, making up only 1-1.3% of the population. The figure 4. began to rise more significantly in 1940 and by 1970 it 5. had trippled to reach 3% of the population.
Although there 6. was no change in the number of people aged 65 -74 between 1960 and 1970, the number of people aged 75 and over 7. increased during this time. By the year 2000, 12.4% of the US population 8. had reached the age of 65 or more, although this was slightly lower than in 1990 when it 9. (had) peaked at 12.6%.
The chart shows that today people in the U.S. can expect to live longer than in 1900. By the year 2000 more than 12% of the population 10. had managed to live to the age of 65 and over compared to only 4.1% in 1900.
|
Hello Bulone,
I filled in my tense preferences before I read the rest of your post. So, what you see in blue is what I would automatically choose.
Basically, all of the "absolutely necessary" past perfect usage in that exercise is connected to the use of the word "by" in the sentence. The word "by" is used to mean that something happened before the stated point in time. Compare:
- In 1960 the figure doubled.
- By 1960 the figure had doubled.
In the first sentence, the doubling happened entirely in 1960.
In the second sentence, the doubling did not happen in 1960. The growth that resulted in the figure doubling happened during a period of years before 1960 and the doubling was complete no later than 1960.
The only past perfect sentence that does not include "by" is number 9, and I consider the past perfect to be optional in that sentence. However, the past perfect is probably a little better there because the sentence begins with a time that is later than 1990, and then basically goes back and mentions something that happened in 1990 (i.e. no chronological order in that sentence).
_____________________
"Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional." ~ Chili Davis |
|
Esl_Expert
I'm here quite often ;-)
Joined: 26 Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Location: USA
|
|
| #3 (permalink) Sat Jul 18, 2009 15:18 pm Past simple vs Past perfect simple |
|
|
| Thanks for clearing up my confusion. |
|
Bulone
I'm here quite often ;-)
Joined: 16 May 2009
Posts: 391
|
 |
| #4 (permalink) Sat Jul 18, 2009 16:02 pm Past simple vs Past perfect simple |
|
|
| 'ESL expert' has given you the right choice of tense. For 9 the simple past will do. I think you have misunderstood the time factor use. Your report contains just observations. So one has to select the tense form suitable for the occasion. These situations are not like,'When I reached the station the train had already left.' Here you select the use of past and past perfect to give clarity. Only when you have to show this time difference in connected activity you use such preferences. The report is a general observation so you need not bother about using past for the latest and past perfect for the action that preceded it. best of luck nanucbe. |
|
Nanucbe
I'm here quite often ;-)
Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 132
Location: USA
|
|
| #5 (permalink) Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:44 pm Past simple vs Past perfect simple |
|
|
| Nanucbe wrote: |
| 'ESL expert' has given you the right choice of tense. For 9 the simple past will do. I think you have misunderstood the time factor use. Your report contains just observations. So one has to select the tense form suitable for the occasion. These situations are not like,'When I reached the station the train had already left.' Here you select the use of past and past perfect to give clarity. Only when you have to show this time difference in connected activity you use such preferences. The report is a general observation so you need not bother about using past for the latest and past perfect for the action that preceded it. best of luck nanucbe. |
Spot on mate. I was lost in numbers and gave too much focus on that to figure out the proper tenses. But, now, I kind of starting to get the hang of it. Correct me if I'm wrong - choosing one of them is solely under ones own discretion in a sense that I can use these tenses if I think it is necessary for the listeners to have clear understanding of order of events. Otherwise, I can stick to past simple. Thank you guys for all thorough explanation. |
|
Bulone
I'm here quite often ;-)
Joined: 16 May 2009
Posts: 391
|
|
|
| Present simple, verb "to be" - Subject pronouns | What does field correspondent mean? Is it synonym with war correspondent? |
