I ________ a little Spanish before I went to Mexicoa)studyb)had studiedc)had studyd)have studiedCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

GMAT Exam > GMAT Questions > I ________ a little Spanish before I went to ...

I ________ a little Spanish before I went to Mexico

a)
study
b)
had studied
c)
had study
d)
have studied

Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

I ________ a little Spanish before I went to Mexicoa)studyb)had studie...

To complete the sentence "I ________ a little Spanish before I went to Mexico," we need to choose the correct verb form that matches the past tense context of the sentence.
The correct answer is B: had studied. Here's why:
- Study: This is the base form of the verb and does not match the past tense context of the sentence.
- Had study: This is an incorrect verb form. The verb "had" should be followed by the past participle form of the verb, not the base form.
- Have studied: This is the present perfect tense form and does not match the past tense context of the sentence.
Key Points:
- The sentence is referring to an action that happened before going to Mexico, indicating a past event.
- The past perfect tense is used to express an action that happened before another past action or event.
- In this case, the action of studying Spanish occurred before going to Mexico, making the past perfect tense ("had studied") the appropriate choice.
In conclusion:
The correct verb form to complete the sentence is "had studied." This indicates that the speaker learned some Spanish before their trip to Mexico.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Similar GMAT Doubts

Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the question as follow.On the surface, the conquest of the Aztec empire by Herman Cortes is one of the most amazing military accomplishments in history. With a small fighting force numbering in the hundreds, Cortes led the Spanish explorers into victory against an Aztec population that many believe topped 21 million. In light of such a seemingly impossible victory, the obvious question is: how did a small group of foreign fighters manage to topple one of the worlds strongest, wealthiest, and most successful military empires?Several factors led to Cortes success. First, the Spanish exploited animosity toward the Aztecs among rival groups and convinced thousands of locals to fight. In one account of a battle, it is recorded that at least 200,000 natives fought with Cortes. Next, the Spanish possessed superior military equipment in the form of European cannons, guns, and crossbows, leading to effective and efficient disposal of Aztec defenses. For example, Spanish cannons quickly defeated large Aztec walls that had protected the empire against big and less technically advanced armies.Despite the Spanish advantages, the Aztecs probably could have succeeded in defending their capital city of Tenochtitlan had they leveraged their incredible population base to increase their armys size and ensured that no rogue cities would ally with Cortes. In order to accomplish this later goal, Aztec leader Motecuhzoma needed to send envoys to neighboring cities telling their inhabitants about the horrors of Spanish conquest and the inevitability of Spanish betrayal.In addition, the Aztecs should have exploited the fact that the battle was taking place on their territory. No reason existed for the Aztecs to consent to a conventional battle, which heavily favored the Spanish. Motecuhzomas forces should have thought outside the box and allowed Cortes into the city, only to subsequently use hundreds of thousands of fighters to prevent escape and proceed in surprise "door-to-door" combat. With this type of battle, the Aztecs would have largely thwarted Spanish technological supremacy. However, in the end, the superior weaponry of the Spanish, the pent-up resentment of Aztec rivals, the failure of Aztec diplomacy, and the lack of an unconventional Aztec war plan led to one of the most surprising military outcomes in the past one thousand years.Q.The passage implies that which of the following constituted the reason for Cortes success seeming so impressive?

View answer

Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the question as follow.On the surface, the conquest of the Aztec empire by Herman Cortes is one of the most amazing military accomplishments in history. With a small fighting force numbering in the hundreds, Cortes led the Spanish explorers into victory against an Aztec population that many believe topped 21 million. In light of such a seemingly impossible victory, the obvious question is: how did a small group of foreign fighters manage to topple one of the worlds strongest, wealthiest, and most successful military empires?Several factors led to Cortes success. First, the Spanish exploited animosity toward the Aztecs among rival groups and convinced thousands of locals to fight. In one account of a battle, it is recorded that at least 200,000 natives fought with Cortes. Next, the Spanish possessed superior military equipment in the form of European cannons, guns, and crossbows, leading to effective and efficient disposal of Aztec defenses. For example, Spanish cannons quickly defeated large Aztec walls that had protected the empire against big and less technically advanced armies.Despite the Spanish advantages, the Aztecs probably could have succeeded in defending their capital city of Tenochtitlan had they leveraged their incredible population base to increase their armys size and ensured that no rogue cities would ally with Cortes. In order to accomplish this later goal, Aztec leader Motecuhzoma needed to send envoys to neighboring cities telling their inhabitants about the horrors of Spanish conquest and the inevitability of Spanish betrayal.In addition, the Aztecs should have exploited the fact that the battle was taking place on their territory. No reason existed for the Aztecs to consent to a conventional battle, which heavily favored the Spanish. Motecuhzomas forces should have thought outside the box and allowed Cortes into the city, only to subsequently use hundreds of thousands of fighters to prevent escape and proceed in surprise "door-to-door" combat. With this type of battle, the Aztecs would have largely thwarted Spanish technological supremacy. However, in the end, the superior weaponry of the Spanish, the pent-up resentment of Aztec rivals, the failure of Aztec diplomacy, and the lack of an unconventional Aztec war plan led to one of the most surprising military outcomes in the past one thousand years.Q.Which of the following best characterizes the main point the author is trying to convey in the passage?ll

View answer

Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the question as follow.On the surface, the conquest of the Aztec empire by Herman Cortes is one of the most amazing military accomplishments in history. With a small fighting force numbering in the hundreds, Cortes led the Spanish explorers into victory against an Aztec population that many believe topped 21 million. In light of such a seemingly impossible victory, the obvious question is: how did a small group of foreign fighters manage to topple one of the worlds strongest, wealthiest, and most successful military empires?Several factors led to Cortes success. First, the Spanish exploited animosity toward the Aztecs among rival groups and convinced thousands of locals to fight. In one account of a battle, it is recorded that at least 200,000 natives fought with Cortes. Next, the Spanish possessed superior military equipment in the form of European cannons, guns, and crossbows, leading to effective and efficient disposal of Aztec defenses. For example, Spanish cannons quickly defeated large Aztec walls that had protected the empire against big and less technically advanced armies.Despite the Spanish advantages, the Aztecs probably could have succeeded in defending their capital city of Tenochtitlan had they leveraged their incredible population base to increase their armys size and ensured that no rogue cities would ally with Cortes. In order to accomplish this later goal, Aztec leader Motecuhzoma needed to send envoys to neighboring cities telling their inhabitants about the horrors of Spanish conquest and the inevitability of Spanish betrayal.In addition, the Aztecs should have exploited the fact that the battle was taking place on their territory. No reason existed for the Aztecs to consent to a conventional battle, which heavily favored the Spanish. Motecuhzomas forces should have thought outside the box and allowed Cortes into the city, only to subsequently use hundreds of thousands of fighters to prevent escape and proceed in surprise "door-to-door" combat. With this type of battle, the Aztecs would have largely thwarted Spanish technological supremacy. However, in the end, the superior weaponry of the Spanish, the pent-up resentment of Aztec rivals, the failure of Aztec diplomacy, and the lack of an unconventional Aztec war plan led to one of the most surprising military outcomes in the past one thousand years.Q.The author implies which of the following about the Aztec view toward an unconventional military confrontation of the Spanish?

View answer

Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the question as follow.On the surface, the conquest of the Aztec empire by Herman Cortes is one of the most amazing military accomplishments in history. With a small fighting force numbering in the hundreds, Cortes led the Spanish explorers into victory against an Aztec population that many believe topped 21 million. In light of such a seemingly impossible victory, the obvious question is: how did a small group of foreign fighters manage to topple one of the worlds strongest, wealthiest, and most successful military empires?Several factors led to Cortes success. First, the Spanish exploited animosity toward the Aztecs among rival groups and convinced thousands of locals to fight. In one account of a battle, it is recorded that at least 200,000 natives fought with Cortes. Next, the Spanish possessed superior military equipment in the form of European cannons, guns, and crossbows, leading to effective and efficient disposal of Aztec defenses. For example, Spanish cannons quickly defeated large Aztec walls that had protected the empire against big and less technically advanced armies.Despite the Spanish advantages, the Aztecs probably could have succeeded in defending their capital city of Tenochtitlan had they leveraged their incredible population base to increase their armys size and ensured that no rogue cities would ally with Cortes. In order to accomplish this later goal, Aztec leader Motecuhzoma needed to send envoys to neighboring cities telling their inhabitants about the horrors of Spanish conquest and the inevitability of Spanish betrayal.In addition, the Aztecs should have exploited the fact that the battle was taking place on their territory. No reason existed for the Aztecs to consent to a conventional battle, which heavily favored the Spanish. Motecuhzomas forces should have thought outside the box and allowed Cortes into the city, only to subsequently use hundreds of thousands of fighters to prevent escape and proceed in surprise "door-to-door" combat. With this type of battle, the Aztecs would have largely thwarted Spanish technological supremacy. However, in the end, the superior weaponry of the Spanish, the pent-up resentment of Aztec rivals, the failure of Aztec diplomacy, and the lack of an unconventional Aztec war plan led to one of the most surprising military outcomes in the past one thousand years.Q.Which of the following best characterizes the authors view about the inevitability of Aztec demise at the hands of the Spanish?

View answer

In a recent study, Mario García argues that in the United States between 1930 and 1960 the group of political activists he calls the “Mexican American Generation” was more radical and politically diverse (5) than earlier historians have recognized. Through analysis of the work of some of the era’s most important scholars, García does provide persuasive evidence that in the 1930s and 1940s these activists anticipated many of the reforms proposed by the more (10) militant Chicanos of the 1960s and 1970s. His study, however, suffers from two flaws.First, García’s analysis of the evidence he provides to demonstrate the Mexican American Generation’s political diversity is not entirely (15) consistent. Indeed, he undermines his primary thesis by emphasizing an underlying consensus among various groups that tends to conceal the full significance of their differences. Groups such as the League of United Latin American Citizens, an (20) organization that encouraged Mexican Americans to pursue a civil rights strategy of assimilation into the United States political and cultural mainstream, were often diametrically opposed to organizations such as the Congress of Spanish-Speaking People, a coalition (25) group that advocated bilingual education and equal rights for resident aliens in the United States. García acknowledges these differences but dismisses them as insignificant, given that the goals of groups as disparate as these centered on liberal reform, not (30) revolution. But one need only note the fierce controversies that occurred during the period over United States immigration policies and the question of assimilation versus cultural maintenance to recognize that Mexican American political history since 1930 (35) has been characterized not by consensus but by intense and lively debate.Second, García may be exaggerating the degree to which the views of these activists were representative of the ethnic Mexican population residing in the (40) United States during this period. Noting that by 1930 the proportion of the Mexican American population that had been born in the United States had significantly increased, García argues that between 1930 and 1960 a new generation of Mexican American (45) leaders appeared, one that was more acculturated and hence more politically active than its predecessor. Influenced by their experience of discrimination and by the inclusive rhetoric of World War II slogans, these leaders, according to García, were determined to (50) achieve full civil rights for all United States residents of Mexican descent. However, it is not clear how far this outlook extended beyond these activists. Without a better understanding of the political implications of important variables such as patterns of bilingualism (55) and rates of Mexican immigration and naturalization, and the variations in ethnic consciousness these variables help to create, one cannot assume that an increase in the proportion of Mexican Americans born in the United States necessarily resulted in an increase (60) in the ethnic Mexican population’s political activism.According to the passage, the League of United Latin American Citizens differed from the Congress of Spanish-Speaking People in that the League of United Latin American Citizens

View answer

Top Courses for GMATView all

GMAT Focus Edition Mock Test Series 2025

Quantitative for GMAT

Crash Course for GMAT

Data Insights for GMAT

100 RCs for GMAT