Murphy's Intermediate Grammar test:
Jack ____ in New York for ten years. Now he lives here.
lived
has lived
has been living
Use of "has" and "has been" in English is pretty similar to Spanish, where you could use any of the three answers. And even though I know the rule is "if the action has already passed use simple past" the last two sound right to me too. I would use the second specially if I want to convey the idea that he was leaving there until now, until recently or that it wasn't long ago. I might even want to emphasize that it has been a period of time, a long period, and for that I could also use the third option…
Murphy's book only accepts A as correct. It might be the most frequent use, but isn't it too strict to be the only one?
If I'm totally or mostly wrong, what am I missing?
Best Answer
It would be easier to read the sentence pair if 'here' was unambiguously differentiated from 'New York'—for example by saying 'in Chicago' instead of 'here'.
Having said that, all three (A, B, and C) can be correct.
'Lived' seems and is obviously correct, as we are talking about a completed past action that took place entirely in the past (even if it lasted ten years) and cannot include present time. Here the ten years and now are mutually exclusive times.
Jack has at some point in his life lived in New York for a total of ten years in the past, either all at once or over several periods. And now he lives in Chicago. The ten years is all in the past and excludes now. These two statements are just two statements, and aren't necessarily connected other than by topic matter. Jack could also have lived in Sao Paolo immediately before moving to Chicago.
The present perfect continuous or progressive can refer to recently completed actions that one is no longer doing. Example: I've been out running for an hour; now I'm home. Thus, the present perfect continuous can refer to the most recent ten years prior to moving to Chicago.