<p>Though the creator of the yo-yo was awarded a patent in 1866, the toy did not become widely available until 1928, when Pedro Flores opened the Yo-Yo Manufacturing Company.</p>
<p>A) was awarded
B) did not become
C) widely
D) when
E) no error</p>
<p>Can someone please explain why was awarded has no error and is not past perfect tense? I mean it’s done in 1866, before another event in the past.</p>
<p>I think it is because the sentence is not comparing the times between events of the creator of the yo yo. The words “had been awarded” would have to be used if the part of the sentence after the comma was dealing with the yo yo creator like this: “Though the creator of the yo-yo had been awarded (past perfect) a patent in 1866, he was (past) not seen as an amazing inventor until 1900.”</p>
<p>But the sentence in question is comparing the times between the creator of the yo-yo and the success of the yo-yo itself. (ie. the subject of the verbs “was awarded” and “did” are not the same)</p>
<p>I see now. Does it make a difference if its describing two different things? Because I never knew that before.</p>
<p>"Does it make a difference if its describing two different things? "</p>
<p>No…
You could have:
“I questioned (past) why they had come (past perfect) late.” - independent clause w/ “I” the subject of the first verb and “they” the subject of the second. This is correct English grammar.</p>
<p>But I think it is just easier to think of it that way when you have the “did not become” construction (or anything that implies “did not become” like: While Vincent Van Gogh died many years ago, his paintings were not popular until much later.) See, the yo-yo inventor may have gotten his patent well before the yo-yo became widely available, but that is not what you are comparing. You are comparing the time the yo-yo inventor got the patent to the time when the yo-yo was not yet widely available. These happened at the same time, so they get the same tense.</p>