Learn English – Is it possible to use simple past with “During the last week”

Let's first talk about the following two sentences:

1- Sara went to bed as soon as she had finished homework.

2- Sara went to bed as soon as she finished homework.

I think your confusion is valid because we use the past perfect when we talk about something that took place before another thing in the past. So the use of the past perfect comes across in the first sentence but the use of the past simple in the second sentence doesn't. Am I right? In fact, we don't need to use the past perfect unless it is necessary or unavoidable to do so. Even if we talk about one action happening before the other one, it is possible to use the simple past for both actions if we think it is not necessary to highlight or emphasize the happening of the earlier action. It sounds natural to avoid using the past perfect where the simple past works, which is used to refer to something or several things happening in sequence (one after another) in the past.

So both of the sentences are grammatically correct. However, I'll prefer the second phrase to the first one.

As for the last two sentences, it is correct to say that "everyone had gone home when Sara got to the party", but it's not grammatically correct to say that "everyone had gone home when Sara had got to the party". It doesn't make sense. In the past perfect when we talk about two events, we use the simple past in one clause and the past perfect in the second clause.

Let's now talk about the following sentence you are confused about:

"Everyone went home when Sara had got to the party".

There is nothing wrong with this sentence, but the meaning is other way round. It means that first Sara got to the party and then every one went home. Look at the first sentence again. When Sara got to the party, everyone had gone home. Here it means that first everyone went home and then Sara got to the party. Sometimes, one action happens soon after the other action, here we should use the past simple in both clauses such as when Sara got to the party, everyone left, when they saw the police, they ran away, etc.

'

Hmm. I definitely prefer these:

1. Jack the Ripper would approach...
2. The Aztecs fought...
3. He used to play piano as a boy...
4. I read a lot about...

1. This is talking in context of another action already implied to be habitual, such as "When he was on the hunt, Jack would..." 'Would' is used when you place an actor in a scenario and talk about the possibilities of that scenario, what the actor's wills and choices are. (Note: will -> would, using will in the choice or volition sense.)

2. This is tricky to explain. The problem is that English has tenses that merged together in the modern language, but that are still separate in their logic. I am not so sure 'simple past' is an accurate characterization of this verb. In an earlier tongue, this could be written as "the Aztecs of old did fight their enemies with wooden pikes." but modern sources consider that an intensifier instead of a tense creator. I'm stumped.
   I am okay with 'would fight' in this context, but prefer it as I wrote it above.

3. "Used to" seems appropriate for two reasons: this seems like a storytelling thing instead of a more formal context, and he is also implied not to practice piano anymore. Used to should not be used in a formal context.

4. I prefer this simply because the sentence reads best when this isn't treated as a habitual at all. This is entirely equivalent to both "at some point, I read..." and "several times during my childhood, I read..." but the distinction isn't important, just that the event did happen.