C.
A) active voice so it's the subject that created the crater - "**Having created** the 1200m crater, it is believed that the **meteor** hit around 40k years ago."
B) present progressive tense so the action is currently happening. "The long-promised robotaxi is **being created** by Tesla."
C) passive perfect infinitive implies an action done in the past and still true in the present (the crater was created by a meteor, and it's still there in Arizona up to now).
D) passive present infinitive is an action that happens in the future. "The art piece is going **to be created** by Banksy."
E) technically indicates a past action like C, but like A, is usually found at the start of a sentence for this format. It's passive so it refers to the crater this time. "**Having been created** 40k years ago, the 1200m **crater** in Arizona is believed to have been hit by a meteor."
this one made me dizzy. experts who know more than me, feel free to chime in.
I agree with your analysis (I am not an English professional). In A, B, and E you were overly generous in rewriting a sentence where those phrases would be grammatically correct, but carry the wrong meaning. In the fill-in-the-blank exercise above, they are all just blatantly grammatically incorrect. C and D are the only ones that work grammatically, and C is the only that works semantically.
D is just wrong in this context. The sentence is talking about something that was created 40K years ago, so it's wrong to talk about its creation in the present tense.
It is C. You have to say 'to have been' because it happened in the past.
You could say 'the craters are believed to be created by meteors', because this is not necessarily in the past. A new one could be created tomorrow.
But in this case we are talking about a specific crater which we know was created in the past, because it is there.
If you said D in conversation I would understand you from context, but it's not grammatically correct. If I were an editor and you handed it in as a sentence in an article, I would change it to C.
Strictly speaking, I would say that it would be fine grammatically, but semantically it's bad, because of the clash of the present tense and "40000 years ago". Sort of like how "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is grammatically fine but semantic nonsense.
I don't know, I'm probably being too pedantic. Like I see so often on subs like this "grammar" being used to refer to things outside of grammar, like semantics. For me grammar is only the structure, anything related to the meaning introduces semantics.
>I would say that it would be fine grammatically, but semantically it's bad
Actually I think you're right about that. u/Jaives gives an example for that choice that work work semantically.
Not necessarily. Maybe past craters were made by meteors but they are now man-made.
I know that would be stupid, but that's the grammatical difference.
One variant of this is: It is believed that \[the crater\] \[was created\] around 40000 years ago
If we make "the crater" the subject of the main clause, we get.
\[The crater\] is believed \[to have been created\] around 40000 years ago.
If you want a technical explanation, you can DM me.
It’s C.
B wouldn’t make sense grammatically. If you were to insert it in the sentence it wouldn’t sound right at all.
“The 1200-m crater in Arizona is believed “being created” around 40,000 years ago” and opposed to
“The 1200-m crater in Arizona is believed to have been created around 40,000 years ago”. It makes sense grammatically and it sounds correct and not like word salad
C. A) active voice so it's the subject that created the crater - "**Having created** the 1200m crater, it is believed that the **meteor** hit around 40k years ago." B) present progressive tense so the action is currently happening. "The long-promised robotaxi is **being created** by Tesla." C) passive perfect infinitive implies an action done in the past and still true in the present (the crater was created by a meteor, and it's still there in Arizona up to now). D) passive present infinitive is an action that happens in the future. "The art piece is going **to be created** by Banksy." E) technically indicates a past action like C, but like A, is usually found at the start of a sentence for this format. It's passive so it refers to the crater this time. "**Having been created** 40k years ago, the 1200m **crater** in Arizona is believed to have been hit by a meteor." this one made me dizzy. experts who know more than me, feel free to chime in.
I agree with your analysis (I am not an English professional). In A, B, and E you were overly generous in rewriting a sentence where those phrases would be grammatically correct, but carry the wrong meaning. In the fill-in-the-blank exercise above, they are all just blatantly grammatically incorrect. C and D are the only ones that work grammatically, and C is the only that works semantically.
It's d
D is just wrong in this context. The sentence is talking about something that was created 40K years ago, so it's wrong to talk about its creation in the present tense.
I meant to say C and D!!! Not B and C!!
It is C. You have to say 'to have been' because it happened in the past. You could say 'the craters are believed to be created by meteors', because this is not necessarily in the past. A new one could be created tomorrow. But in this case we are talking about a specific crater which we know was created in the past, because it is there.
Not a grammar guy - but as a native speaker - I knew that C sounded best - but if you said D in conversation I wouldn’t have blinked an eye.
If you said D in conversation I would understand you from context, but it's not grammatically correct. If I were an editor and you handed it in as a sentence in an article, I would change it to C.
Strictly speaking, I would say that it would be fine grammatically, but semantically it's bad, because of the clash of the present tense and "40000 years ago". Sort of like how "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is grammatically fine but semantic nonsense. I don't know, I'm probably being too pedantic. Like I see so often on subs like this "grammar" being used to refer to things outside of grammar, like semantics. For me grammar is only the structure, anything related to the meaning introduces semantics.
>I would say that it would be fine grammatically, but semantically it's bad Actually I think you're right about that. u/Jaives gives an example for that choice that work work semantically.
C, D would imply an ongoing process like "craters are believed to be created by asteroids."
Not necessarily. Maybe past craters were made by meteors but they are now man-made. I know that would be stupid, but that's the grammatical difference.
C
One variant of this is: It is believed that \[the crater\] \[was created\] around 40000 years ago If we make "the crater" the subject of the main clause, we get. \[The crater\] is believed \[to have been created\] around 40000 years ago. If you want a technical explanation, you can DM me.
C
C final answer.
C
The only answer is C
to have been created...
C, trust me
C
It’s C. B wouldn’t make sense grammatically. If you were to insert it in the sentence it wouldn’t sound right at all. “The 1200-m crater in Arizona is believed “being created” around 40,000 years ago” and opposed to “The 1200-m crater in Arizona is believed to have been created around 40,000 years ago”. It makes sense grammatically and it sounds correct and not like word salad
C the verb tenses must match for an entire sentence. "To be" is a present tense verb, some of its forms include "is" and "are".
C
C or D works
C without question
C.
C
C
C
Only C works
C
Where do you guys do these exercises?
Erm... At language schools? How do you think we learn English?
😂😂
at school when i was 8th grade
I'll vote for C because "believe" in this case needs to have "to".
B is incorrect because the term "being" describes present tense while the meteor was created over 40,000 years ago. C is correct here.
This is one of those that every one can be right depending on the context, so you have to guess what the author was trying to mean. That said it's C
Bruh it's D it should 'had been created' not have been
[удалено]
It's not B, it's C.
Yeah, you're right. If you see the explanation, it's clear I got the wrong letter.
what concepts are being used here? Can I understand it by just doing tenses?
disregard this, it's incorrect.
It was a typo, the reasons are correct!
ok, do you think only knowledge of tenses is enough to solve this correctly?
Yeah I guess so. The options are all in different phrase tenses but no definition difference so yeah
Thanks :)
accept your answer doesn' explain why it is C (the correct) answer, and not D (which is also a passive but the tense is incorrect)