Usage of had when time marker is not mentioned

[SagarS393]

Hello,

Could anyone please provide assistance on below question?

If there are 2 events and Past Perfect action did occur at a specific time (eg:- 16th centuary, 1890, etc), and we have time marker such as before/ after to highlight the sequence, can we avoid usage of past perfect 'had'? i.e. Can we use Simple Past instead of the Past Perfect when "before" or "after" is mentioned?

Similarly, if the Past Perfect is not referring to an action at a specific time (i.e. an year or date is not mentioned), and we have time marker such as before/ after to highlight the sequence, can we avoid usage of past perfect 'had'? i.e. Can we use Simple Past instead of the Past Perfect when "before" or "after" is mentioned ? or since specific time is not mentioned for earlier event, using 'had' is obligatory even though there is time marker such as "before" or "after"?

I am asking above question in reference to below question from Free Online GMAT Practice Test - London Business School:

Because of the destruction of cathedral treasuries during the French revolution, works of Anglo-Saxon art became scarce after the majority of the pieces find their way to France.

A. cathedral treasuries during the French revolution, works of Anglo-Saxon art became scarce after the majority of the pieces find
B. cathedral treasuries during the French revolution, works of Anglo-Saxon art became scarce after the majority of the pieces had found
C. treasuries belonging to cathedrals during the French revolution, works of Anglo-Saxon art became scarce after the majority of the pieces had found
D. cathedral treasuries during the French revolution, works of Anglo-Saxon art became scarce after the majority of the pieces are finding
E. cathedral treasuries during the French revolution, works of Anglo-Saxon art became scarce after the majority of the pieces found

I came down to options B and E out of which I marked E. But correct answer as per OA is B.

Thank you!

Regards,
Sagar Sonawane

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

If I understand you correctly, you're asking if we can avoid the use of past perfect when we have two events in the past. Yes, we can. If the order of events is clear, then we don't need past perfect. Take these (correct) examples:
She arrived home, unpacked her bags, and went to bed.
After we watched the film, we went to a bar.
Before the 19th century, most of California was a wilderness.
It's worth understanding what the point of past perfect is, and then you'll understand when it's needed. Sometimes the order of events isn't clear, so we need to use it. Take these (correct) examples:
When we arrived, they ate dinner.
When we arrived, they had eaten dinner.
You can see that the meaning is different the two cases. Another purpose of past perfect is to behave in a similar way to the present perfect. For example, I can say about the present: 'I've lived in New York for 5 years [and I'm still living there].' If we wanted to make a similar statement about the past, then we'd use past perfect:
In 1895, Joe Brown had lived in New York for 5 years.
Check out the Sentence Correction Strategy Guide for more examples and explanations.

In regard to the problem you posted, it's hard for me to comment. The problem doesn't read like a real GMAT problem. That difference in tense between B and E is, in my opinion, subjective. A real GMAT problem would have a clearer difference between answer choices. Further, I'm struggling to understand the actual meaning of the sentence. It seems that the use of the word 'after' here is in an old-fashioned sense - meaning something more like 'since'. Other suspicious aspects seem the relation between the 'because' clause and the rest of the sentence, and the phrase 'became scarce' that seems to be a little vague or informal. In conclusion, I wouldn't worry about this problem if I were you.

[SagarS393]

Ok. I got it Sage. Thank you so much for your response.

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

You're welcome.