Past Perfect Continuous Tense - Practice (MCQ) - CAT MCQ

To solve this question, we need to determine the correct verb tense for the actions mentioned in the sentence. Let's break it down:
The sentence structure is: "By the time the fire fighters [action], the fire [action] many huts."
1. The first action: "arrived" - This action refers to the firefighters reaching the location.
2. The second action: "had destroyed" - This action refers to the fire destroying the huts.
Now let's analyze the options:
A:

arrived, destroyed

- This option is incorrect because it does not use the correct verb tense for the second action. It should be in the past perfect tense.
B:

arrived, had destroyed

- This option is correct as it uses the past perfect tense for both actions. It indicates that the fire had already destroyed the huts before the firefighters arrived.
C:

had arrived, destroyed

- This option is incorrect because it uses the past perfect tense for the first action and the simple past tense for the second action. The verb tenses should be consistent.
D:

had arrived, had destroyed

- This option is incorrect because it uses the past perfect tense for both actions. It implies that both actions happened before a specific past time, which is not necessary in this context.
Therefore, the correct answer is option B:

arrived, had destroyed

.

He was not permitted to write the exam, because he had not brought his hall ticket.

Past Perfect Tense,
I wish you had sent your application in time.

The correct answer is option B:

caught, had been looking

Explanation:
To solve this question, we need to identify the correct tenses for the verbs "catch" and "look".
In the given sentence, "The Police …………… the thief", we need to use the past tense of the verb "catch" because the police caught the thief in the past.
Next, we have "They ……………. for him for two months". Here, we need to use the past perfect continuous tense to indicate an action that started in the past, continued for a period of time, and was still ongoing at a certain point in the past.
Let's analyze the options:
- Option A:

caught, looked

- This option uses the past tense "caught" correctly, but the present tense "looked" is incorrect. It should be "had been looking" to indicate the past perfect continuous tense.
- Option B:

caught, had been looking

- This option correctly uses the past tense "caught" and the past perfect continuous tense "had been looking". This is the correct answer.
- Option C:

had caught, looked

- This option uses the past perfect tense "had caught", which is incorrect. We need to use the simple past tense "caught" instead. Additionally, the present tense "looked" is incorrect. It should be "had been looking" to indicate the past perfect continuous tense.
- Option D:

caught, have looked

- This option uses the present perfect tense "have looked", which is incorrect. We need to use the past perfect continuous tense "had been looking" instead.
Therefore, the correct answer is option B:

caught, had been looking

. The police caught the thief and had been looking for him for two months.

To determine the correct answer, we need to analyze the sentence and the context provided.
The sentence is in the conditional form, indicating a hypothetical situation. The use of "would have" suggests that the action did not happen in reality but is being imagined.
Let's break down the options and analyze them one by one:
A: met
- This option is in the simple past tense. It suggests that the action of meeting the Principal would have taken place in the past.
- However, this option does not fit the structure of the conditional sentence. We need to use the past perfect tense to express an unrealized action in the past.
B: had met
- This option is in the past perfect tense. It suggests that the action of meeting the Principal would have taken place before another past event.
- This option aligns with the structure of the conditional sentence and is the correct answer.
C: have met
- This option is in the present perfect tense. It suggests that the action of meeting the Principal has taken place in the past and is still relevant in the present.
- However, this option does not fit the structure of the conditional sentence. We need to use the past perfect tense to express an unrealized action in the past.
D: meet
- This option is in the base form of the verb. It suggests a general action of meeting the Principal but does not convey the hypothetical nature of the sentence.
- This option does not fit the structure of the conditional sentence. We need to use the past perfect tense to express an unrealized action in the past.
Therefore, the correct answer is B: had met.

I didn't speak to him, as I was not introduced to him formally.

To determine the correct answer, let's analyze the given sentence:
"By the time we _____ the station, the train _____."
The sentence indicates that two actions happened in the past, and one action occurred before the other. We need to use the past perfect tense for the action that happened first and the simple past tense for the action that happened later.
Now let's examine the options:
A: reached, had left
- This option correctly uses the past perfect tense ("had left") for the action that happened first and the simple past tense ("reached") for the action that happened later. Therefore, this option is correct.
B: had reached, had left
- This option uses the past perfect tense for both actions, which implies that both actions happened before a specific time in the past. However, in the given sentence, there is no specific time mentioned. Therefore, this option is incorrect.
C: had reached, left
- This option uses the past perfect tense for the action that happened first ("had reached") but uses the simple past tense for the action that happened later ("left"). This is incorrect because the actions should be consistent in tense.
D: reached, left
- This option uses the simple past tense for both actions, which does not indicate the correct sequence of events. Therefore, this option is incorrect.
Therefore, the correct answer is option A: reached, had left.

To determine the correct answer, let's analyze the given sentence and the options provided:
"If Balu had seen the secretary earlier, he would have given him a job."
Now, let's break down the sentence and understand the grammar rules involved:
1. "If Balu had seen the secretary earlier" - This is a conditional sentence using the past perfect tense. It implies a hypothetical situation that did not happen in the past.
2. "he would have given him a job" - This is the result or consequence of the hypothetical situation mentioned in the first part of the sentence. It uses the conditional perfect tense, which indicates an action that would have happened in the past if the condition were met.
Based on the analysis, we can conclude that the correct answer is option A: "had seen, would have given."
To summarize:
- The correct answer is A: "had seen, would have given."
- The sentence is a conditional type 3 sentence, expressing a hypothetical situation in the past and its result.
- Option B is incorrect because it uses the present simple tense ("would give"), which does not match the past perfect tense in the first part of the sentence.
- Option C is incorrect because it states "none of the above," but option A is indeed the correct answer.

Option (a) is correct

" Were, would win" 

If raju were in our team, we would win.