<p>When Doris Lessing published The Great Golden Notebook in 1962, (it) (instantly established) herself (as one) of the (most important) literary voices of her generation.</p>
<p>Five years in (the writing), her new book is (both a response) to her critics' mistrust (with) her earlier findings and (an elaboration) of her original thesis.</p>
<p>(Despite) its cultural importance, the Daily Gazette (lost) 70 percent of its subscribers since 1920 and, by 1955, (was losing) (as much as) $200,000 a year.</p>
<p>The error in 2) is in “with” because of, as IceQube said, idiom error. People just don’t use “mistrust” with the preposition “with”. I think it’s “mistrust of”. I really hate idiom errors, because the only way to identify them and get them right is pretty much to memorize them all.</p>
<p>Explaining 3) takes a lot of blabbering about verb tenses. “Since 1920” indicates that the time frame you’re talking about started in 1920 and is still going on, and the Gazette’s loss took place at some indefinite point in that time frame, which is in the past. You use “had lost” for situations like this, instead of “lost”, which is for a definite point in the past.</p>
<p>But it’s late, so if someone who actually studies English sees this, please correct me if I’m wrong.</p>
<p>1) “it” (the book) cannot establish “herself”
2) “the writing” seems a little weird, but “mistrust with” is a clear idiom error
3) “had lost” (i think)… there is a clear error in verb tense</p>
<p>i think it should be “mistrust of” or “mistrust in”?<br>
if you are having trouble with the past perfect tense then look at the two events in the sentence and if one of those events is clearly happening before the other event then put a “had” in front of it.</p>
<p>For the third question: (Despite) its cultural importance, the Daily Gazette (lost) 70 percent of its subscribers since 1920 and, by 1955, (was losing) (as much as) $200,000 a year. </p>
<p>I agree that the problem is with the tense of “lost”. Several of the responders suggested that it should be “had lost” – i.e. the past perfect. However in this case the loss of subscribers started in 1920 and is implicitly ongoing so the correct tense is the present perfect – i.e. has lost. Clepsydra notes that the sentence refers to 2 time periods and so that means that the earlier reference requires the past perfect. My reading of the sentence though is that the two time references, although complementary, are nonetheless different and unrelated insofar as the time period is concerned. Try the sentence without the clause that starts with “and”, and for that I expect that most of you will agree that “has lost” is required.</p>