<p>He has left me, so I have begun looking sounds better.
… And began is past tense…</p>
<p>I never said “when” was correct. I’m trying to say that there were two errors in the sentence. There is no question about “It was not until… that” form. However, it is also true that the sentence should be in present perfect tense.</p>
<p>read this: [A</a> grammar question on “It was not until…”](<a href=“http://www.english-test.net/forum/ftopic52832.html]A”>http://www.english-test.net/forum/ftopic52832.html)</p>
<p>& This sentence: “It was not until the formation of the National Park Service in 1916 that preservation and recreation came to be viewed as compatible goals.”</p>
<p>the WHEN should be THAT.</p>
<p>@classicgrl, No. It’s in the present perfect. “For decades” indicates the fostering is ONGOING. It doesn’t suggest it ended at all. The present perfect thus requires “has.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, as I stated above, I have no doubt that there is an error in “when”. I’m pointing out that there is another error that occurs at “had fostered”
“You have grown since the last time I saw you.”
Does this sound correct to you?</p>
<p>I’m assuming the sentence is indeed “Though New Zealand had fostered music for decades, it was not until the 1980’s when New Zealand musicians began to reach foreign audiences.”</p>
<p>I see nothing wrong with “had fostered.” For example, in the 1960s and 1970s, New Zealand fostered music. You use “had” to show that the period of fostering is further back than the 1980s.</p>
<p>It’s that, and that is that.</p>
<p>+1 for choice D, “that” was correct</p>
<p>Yea… what is -2/10E? + -7 Reading? + -0M?</p>
<p>730+770+800 = 2300… oh **** I better start praying lol</p>
<p>I said that “Had Fostered” was incorrect</p>
<p>Haha sheep how do you know your CR score? There’s still a lot of uncertainty…</p>
<p>The caustic/vehement one was stupid.
The executed/handling one was stupid.
The New Zealand one was stupid.</p>
<p>For the NZ one I remember clearly thinking that there were two errors. It was either had or when, and I said that when should have been that, but I can definitely understand those who think that “had” was incorrect.</p>
<p>@tylrrvera</p>
<p>“Though New Zealand has fostered music for decades, it was not until today that New Zealand musicians began to reach foreign audiences”</p>
<p>“Though New Zealand had fostered music for decades, it was not until 1492 that New Zealand musicians began to reach foreign audiences”</p>
<p>You’re saying that the second sentence should read “has fostered”? What if New Zealand imploded in the 1900s? Doesn’t make any sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry… I don’t think the reading curb is going to be that generous. :(</p>
<p>I bet collegeboard and ETS are laughing at the debates we are having on this site and with all other SAT’s. I genuinely think they get enjoyment out of this.</p>
<p>(I would)</p>
<p>Would it be too late to petition AFTER the scores come out?</p>
<p>Yeah caustic vs vehement is pretty lame. Seems a little arbitrary…</p>
<p>Are there usually mystery questions like this after the SAT? Can we expect an easy curve? (This is my first time taking it.)</p>
<p>I don’t see the argument for caustic, the guy wasn’t being sarcastic, he was intensely arguing his point?</p>
<p>@vermilionwaves</p>
<p>Yes, I thought the same, and so I said vehement.</p>
<p>^caustic doesn’t have to mean sarcastic. It also means “severely critical” “scathing” biting"</p>
<p>And he wasn’t just arguing his point, he was ATTACKING coal.</p>