"As soon as I had a look..." would imply you're describing something that happened in the past, ie, "As soon as I had a look, I sent them the designs."
Since the action you describe will take place in the future, but is already completed by the time you are sending the designs, that is, you have had a look, you use the present perfect.
You are misreading the sequence of copula + adjective am willing as a progressive verb form: it is not. As others have said in the comments, willing is an adjective, so this is already present simple.
I cannot think of a verb that has the same meaning as be willing: it describes a mental state very different from want. These sentences are perfectly cromulent:...
To quote, Mitch Hedberg: "I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too."
In English we can express a state in the past without reference to how it might currently be. When we say, "He didn't know how it worked" we mean that worked was at the time (or leading up to the time) of know. This doesn't directly indicate how things are now, ...
The past perfect indicates an action or state that was completed before another past action or state began.
I had learned English before I entered the university
certainly does NOT mean
I was in the process of learning English before I entered the university.
The past progressive here indicates that the process was incomplete through the time that "...
There is no need for the past perfect here because "they were released a long time ago" implies that they were released before you gave your order. In fact, I suspect that most native speakers would actually use the simple past rather than the past perfect. Of course it is NOT wrong to use the past perfect.
Present perfect can only be used if the grammar does not indicate that the event has finished.
So, the first "hit" is correct. In this context, it must be a finished time because if there's a situation "after" it, then it must be finished, and therefore not present perfect.
The second one is bad and should be "hit" for the same ...
The first "hit" is fine.
The "has hit" should not be used with a time marker like "before." If a perfect tense were to be used at all, it should be the past perfect, but that is not required because the sequence in time is made clear by "before."
This answer has been edited in response to a comment by Colin Fine.
With hypothetical statements, logic is as important as tense. This hypothetical scenario is about a past action, as it asks "what would you have done" (as opposed to 'what would you do' in the future). You might think that it sounds correct to match the tense by qualifying it with "if you had been in my place", as we use "were" ...
None of these is wrong. Choice 1 puts the reader's PoV before the start of the test, while choices 2 and 3 put it after the reader is done with part 1.
I agree with comments that "succeed in practicing Part 1." is awkward, in any tense. One may "finish" or "complete a part, or "succeed in it" or "successfully complete&...
Your intuition is correct. You should use either:
in 1980, it was moved
(the move happened in 1980)
by 1980, it had been moved
(the move happened sometime before 1980).
The two sentences have different meanings, so you have to decide which one you actually want to use.
"That's" is a contraction of "that is".
So, your question is really about the difference between "that is" and "that was".
"That was a bad experience" would mean you were referring to a past experience that happened.
"That is a bad experience" would mean you were referring to something you ...