to lock/ to have locked

[joham]

The following is one of China's provinces' college entrance examination question:
You were silly not _____ your car.
A. to lock B. to have locked C. locking D. having locked

(The given answer is B.)

I would think A is the correct answer and simpler and there's no need to say 'to have locked' since the tense 'were' indicates the action 'lock' happened in the past. Am I right?

Could I ask native English speakers to help me please? Thank you in advance.

[RonBee]

"You were silly not to lock your car" means that the person didn't lock his/her car but should have done so. "You were silly not to have locked your car" means nothing.

[joham]

"You were silly not to lock your car" means that the person didn't lock his/her car but should have done so. "You were silly not to have locked your car" means nothing.

Thank you, Ronbee. By saying '"You were silly not to have locked your car" means nothing.', you are saying this sentence is wrong, aren't you?
Hoping you can help me further. Thank you again.
joham

[David L.]

The person was not 'silly' for not locking his car - he was silly for what is implied and foreseen as the consequences of this action for the future: he's leaving his car vulnerable to theft. The tense that links an action in the past to the present and future in terms of its effects is present perfect tense.

[RonBee]

Thank you, Ronbee. By saying '"You were silly not to have locked your car" means nothing.', you are saying this sentence is wrong, aren't you?

Yes, if by "wrong" you mean it is not used and thus has no meaning.


I agree with David L. that "silly" is not the best choice. Perhaps:

It was foolish of you to leave your car unlocked. It might be stolen.