<p>What’s wrong with these sentences???</p>
<li> 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.</li>
</ol>
<p>A) Despite
B) lost
C) was losing
D) as much as
E) No error</p>
<li> The bus would not have had to take the long detour instead of the main highway if the bridge did not become treacherous in the aftermath of an ice storm.</li>
</ol>
<p>A) to take
B) instead of
C) did not become
D) in the aftermath
E) No error</p>
<p>Both of those sentences don’t look like they have anything wrong to me. Yet the answers are 1. B and 2. C. I don’t see why the sentences are incorrect as is–awkward, sure, but not wrong.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Present perfect "has lost" is required because the word since, since 1920, up to now, it has lost 70%. Many times the word for & since are good indicators of -has-have-[present perfect]</p></li>
<li><p>idk , i suck at conditionals.</p>
<br>
<p>< i think u need "had" in the if clause,
if i had... i would...
yep</p>
<br></li>
</ol>
<ol>
<li>C</li>
</ol>
<p>___ would not have had to ____ did not become _____.</p>
<p>That should be "had not become" (past tense).</p>
<p>But "did not become" isn't past tense already?</p>
<ol>
<li>B - should be "has lost"</li>
<li>C "had not become"</li>
</ol>
<p>What is wrong with "did not become"?!?</p>
<p>warpedklown1335, </p>
<p>Technically, what's needed in this sentence is the subjunctive, because the statement is contrary to fact. </p>
<p>The bridge did become treacherous. Therefore, when you are stating what would have happened (or would not have happened), if the bridge had not become treacherous, you need the past tense of the subjunctive mood--which is why "had not become" is required. The phrase "did not become" is past tense, but indicative mood. Check around on Google and you should find a readable explanation.</p>
<p>heres a trick:
usually when u see if, and the second clause contains would, more than many times the if clause requires had</p>