<p>I am sorry for making a question solely on this one question but it has been really bugging me.</p>
<p>Please can everyone work together to get a decent approximation of the actual question.</p>
<p>And can you also tell me whether it was improving sentences or identifying errors section?</p>
<p>Thanks in advance.</p>
<p>Improving sentences</p>
<p>The correct answer was D, which would have switched it to “that”</p>
<p>I argue for A.
Question was New zealand had fostered music since the 1990s (or something)</p>
<p>but New Zealand is still fostering music, therefore had should be has…</p>
<p>oh i think maybe there were two new zealand questions…</p>
<p>I think people should email CB so that this problem is voided. It seems like it can go both ways.</p>
<p>@JefferyJung
good idea. how to do this?</p>
<p>I argue A too. “Had fostered” is incorrect in my opinion. The “for decades” indicates that the “fostering” hasn’t ended and is ongoing. Thus “had” indicates the process HAD ended, which is incorrect.</p>
<p>@Jeffrey jung while you’re at it, email CB about the Vehement/Caustic question. I think we are even more divided on that question than this one. (still really believe it’s caustic)</p>
<p>“Although New Zealand had always fostered music for decades, it was not until the 1980’s when New Zealand began to reach foreign audiences.”</p>
<p>bigger error is THAT</p>
<p>iamins/ I’m not sure whether errors can be bigger than another. It’s grammar. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong. There is no gray area in most parts.</p>
<p>I personally think this problem should be voided…</p>
<p>maybe because “had always” makes it ongoing so it = has?
i had/have no idea anymore D:<</p>
<p>I definitely think it was that instead of when. That is clearly wrong, and even saying it sounds awkward.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, “when” is clearly wrong. However, I think “had fostered” is incorrect also. It implies that New Zealand does not foster music anymore.</p>
<p>Had is correct in this case, since the second part is written in past tense, the fostering of music must have came before the reaching international audiences. If “had” is replaced with “has,” the sentence really makes no sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Had + fostered = past perfect.
Has + fostered = present perfect.</p>
<p>Why would present perfect not make sense in this sentence?</p>
<p>Jane has been faithful to her boyfriend, but her boyfriend left her.</p>
<p>Present perfect goes with past tense.</p>
<p>Although New Zealand had always fostered music for decades, it was not until the 1980’s when New Zealand began to reach foreign audiences. No error.</p>
<p>had always doesn’t make any sense and should be has</p>
<p>But when also doesn’t make any sense because it creates an incomplete sentence.</p>
<p>Are you sure there isn’t a transcription error?</p>
<p>“Although New Zealand HAS always fostered music for decades, it was not until the 1980’s when New Zealand began to reach foreign audiences.” </p>
<p>“Has always fostered music for decades” would indicate New Zealand is still in the process of fostering music “for decades” which is incorrect. I’m trying to figure out a better way to put what’s wrong with the second part if you use “has” too.</p>
<p>And I really don’t remember there was an “always” in that sentence.</p>
<p>I don’t think whoever transcribed this sentence did a good job…</p>