<p>Hey guys, i am having trouble with present perfect and past perfect. Like for example, i know that present perfect is something that has happened in the past and so is past perfect. But present perfect is saying how the action affects the future. And past perfect is saying the the actions affected another action that came after it in the past. So, even if I know the definitions, I still have trouble distinguishing b/w them on the SAT. For example:</p>
<p>You have/had drunk a glass of water this week. Which one is correct?</p>
<p>or </p>
<p>1.) After the uprising of October 10, 1911, that A.)<em>has led</em> to B.)<em>the establishment of</em> a Chinese republic, many Chinese Americans decided to return to China C.)<em>in</em> hopes of a bright future D.)<em>there.</em></p>
<p>I believe that all the perfect tenses show things that happen over time or before a specific event. In your example since you stated a specific date, then it is just regular past tense. I believe the answer is A.</p>
<p>but i know 100% that had led is wrong. If you said “had led,” it would mean that the establishment of the Chinese republic is over, which is not.
“Led” would be best in this case. I’m not sure about “has led,” but I think is a bit redundant because you are only trying to add more information to the uprising thing.</p>
<p>that is not what the passage is refering to, it is refering to the establishment of the chinese republic, which is over!!! so had led and led are both correct, probably. but explain more of perfect past and present.</p>
<p>After the uprising of October 10, 1911, that A.)<em>has led</em> to B.)<em>the establishment of</em> a Chinese republic, many Chinese Americans decided to return and are still returning to China C.)<em>in</em> hopes of a bright future D.)<em>there.</em></p>
<p>The second one cannot be has led and it should be led. The present perfect (has led in the example) cannot be used when you refer to a specific time period that existed in the past and an event that took place then, e.g., you cannot use it when you say such things as “last year,” or “yesterday,” or “after the war,” and you follow that phrase with a reference to something that occurred at the specified time or after. The present perfect is used when the past time period is unspecific or just refers to a generalized past before today, e.g., with reference to doing something “always,” “never,” “once,” “in the last year.”</p>
<p>The second example refers to a specific period of time in the past, “after the uprising of of October 10, 1911,” and thus following it with “has led” is wrong.</p>
<p>Had led, the past perfect, is wrong because it is used to refer to something completed before another related event in the past that is mentioned in the sentence or same phrase happened. Example: “he had led in the polls before the 2008 election was held.” The establishment of the republic is an event being mentioned as something that happened as a result of or after the October uprising and thus not something completed before the uprsing. </p>
<p>Thus the correct word for the second example is “led” since it is referring to something that happened in the past at the same time as or after the October 1911 uprising. </p>
<p>For the first sentence, “have drunk,” the present perfect, is usable instead of had drunk because there is no specific time referred to in the past as to when it was done, just that it was done sometime before now during the last week.</p>
<p>also is apprise’s idiom apprise of or apprise with</p>
<p>but also, isnt week a specific time period? so cant had drunk be correct? sorry i dont understand it…</p>
<p>does the future perfect tense need a specific time period or not? also, what other tenses need or do not need specific time periods. THANKS FOR ALL YOUR HELP! ^___^</p>
<p>i still think had led is correct because the oct. uprising happened before the immigrant got here, hence the reference of an action that occured previously to another action in the passage.</p>
<p>It is “apprise of” not with. And it is not had led because the republic event is being associated with the uprising, and the Chinese Americans’ decision to return is simply defined as something that occurred after the uprising not necessarily after the establishment of the republic. Read the sentence carefully. It does not say their return depended on the completion of the establishment of a republic. In fact, you can read the sentence to mean that some may have returned even before the republic was finally established.</p>
<p>In the last week in the first example is not referring to a specific time in the past but something that could have occurred any time before today. You need to distinguish between a specified past time period that has ended like “last year,” or “last week,” and a time period that is just referring to days, weeks, months or years leading up to today, such as “within the last year” which are not referring to a specific past time.</p>
<p>The future perfect is used to refer to something that has not yet occurred but will occur before some future time, e.g., “You will have learned basic french by the time you come back from Paris.” Specific or general future time really does not enter into the equation but you need something that will occur or end in the future to say that something else will be done before it occurs or ends.</p>
<p>^Not really. The error is now one of redundancy/useless words. The words “had happened” are completely unnecessary because the phrase “after the uprising of October 10, 1911” carries with it the understanding that the event has occurred and thus you do not have to add that it happened.</p>
<p>A possible sentence using the past perfect could be, “After the uprising of October 10, 1911 had ended but before the Chinese republic was formed, many Chinese Americans …”</p>
<p>Present perfect: something happened sometime before the present but can still happen again. This is to differentiate it from the simple past, a distinction that many people do not understand (even my mother, who has a Master’s in Law, still tells me, “Did you do your homework yet?” Urrgh).
Example: “I’ve been to that store; it’s really nice.”</p>
<p>Past perfect: something happened sometime before a certain point in time that has already occurred, something that has been able to happen at some point between the point in time by which it had occurred and the present.
Example: “I drove by that store the other day and thought about how nice it was, but since I’d already been there I didn’t bother with going in.” In this example, the time I drove by the store and decided not to go in is the time by which I’d already been to the store but after which I still could’ve gone in if I’d wanted to.</p>
<p>Sorry if this explanation is a little difficult to understand; it’s the tenses of my native language so it’s difficult to view it too detachedly.</p>
<p>Oh, and FireLion, your sentence is grammatical, but, as drusba said, the words “had happened” are redundant. The reason for this is that the preposition “after” can use either noun clauses or verb clauses as its antecedent, so “the uprising of October 10, 1911” works just as well as “the uprising of October 10, 1911, had happened.” Yes, though, I believe you’re using the correct tense.</p>
<p>and heres my last question, isnt the “there” in the chinese uprising question redundant? because you already know tht the ppl r moving to china, you dont need the there</p>