A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced

I picked D as it better follows the intent of the sentence...

"agreement reduced the amount that the municipalities are allowed to dump"....that the agreement refers to dumping that is ongoing is best expressed here.

"agreement reduced the amount that the municipalities had been allowed to dump" the agreement could not really have reduced the amount that had already been dumped, right?

The bottom-line here is - Which is the correct usage- a) Had been allowed to dump or b) were allowed to dump or C) are allowed to dump.

To understand the concept better, let’s delve into some definitions.

A present tense is used for a current activity or a daily activity or a universal activity.

A past tense used for an activity that started in the past and “ended” in the past. “Ending” in the past is an essential ingredient of past tense. If it had not ended and if it is still continuing, then we can not use the past and we have to use present perfect.

A past perfect is required to be used for distinguishing between two past tense events. The basic requirements are that both the events should have started and “ended” in the past; secondly one of the events should have ended distinctly earlier than the other event.

Given this backdrop, let us analyze the given choices. Has the dumping ended on the date of the agreement in 1972? The dumping had ended neither before nor after the date of the agreement.

Since the ending element is absent in the context, use of either past perfect or past tense is inappropriate.

You can perfectly use a present perfect, which is what Choice C is doing but unfortunately that choice suffers other anomalies such as “reduces” and “phosphate amount”.

D has no such infringements and hence the right choice.

There was a remark that Choice E is a fragment. A fragment lacks a verb. But the choice has ‘reduces’ as the main verb. Hence it is not a fragment, although it is still not the correct answer for using the present tense “reduces”

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended core meaning of the sentence is that a 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.

Concepts tested here: Tenses + Meaning

• The simple present tense is used to indicate actions taking place in the current time frame, indicate habitual actions, state universal truths, and convey information that is permanent in nature.
• The simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past.
• The past perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb "had") is used when a sentence contains two actions in the past; the helping verb "had" is used with the action in the "greater past".
• The past perfect continuous tense (marked by the use of helping verb "had/have been") is used when a sentence contains two actions in past and one action is in greater past as well as continuous in nature; the helping verb "had been" is used with the action that is in the greater past and continuous in nature.
• The present perfect continuous tense (marked by "has/have been") is the correct tense to refer to actions that started in past and continue into the present.
• For referring to the purpose or intent of an action, the infinitive verb form (“to + base form of verb"- "to + dump" in this sentence) is preferred over the present participle ("verb+ing" - "dumping" in this sentence) construction.

A: Trap. This answer choice incorrectly uses the past perfect tense verb “had been allowed” to refer to an action taking place in the current time frame; please remember, the simple present tense is used to refer to actions taking place in the current time frame, and the past perfect tense (marked by the use of helping verb "had") is used when a sentence contains two actions in the past; the helping verb "had" is used with the action in the "greater past".

B: This answer choice incorrectly uses the past perfect continuous tense verb “had been dumping” to refer to an action taking place in the current time frame; please remember, the simple present tense is used to refer to actions taking place in the current time frame, and the past perfect continuous tense (marked by the use of helping verb "had/have been") is only used when a sentence contains two actions in past and one action is in greater past as well as continuous in nature. Further, Option B alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase “municipalities had been dumping”; the construction of this phrase incorrectly implies that the 1972 agreement reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had practically been dumping into the Great Lakes; the intended meaning is that the 1972 agreement reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are permitted to dump into the Great Lakes.

C: This answer choice incorrectly uses the simple present tense verb “reduces” to refer to an action that concluded in the past; please remember, the simple past tense is used to refer to actions that concluded in the past, and the simple present tense is only used to indicate actions taking place in the current time frame, indicate habitual actions, state universal truths, and convey information that is permanent in nature. Further, Option C incorrectly uses the present perfect continuous tense verb “have been allowed to dump” to refer to an action taking place in the current time frame; please remember, the simple present tense is used to refer to actions taking place in the current time frame, and the present perfect continuous tense (marked by "has/have been") is the correct tense to refer to actions that started in past and continue into the present.

D: Correct. This answer choice correctly uses the simple past tense verb “reduced” to refer to an action that concluded in the past. Further, Option E correctly uses the simple present tense verb “are allowed” to refer to an action taking place in the current time frame. Moreover, Option D uses the phrase “are allowed to dump”, conveying the intended meaning – that the 1972 agreement reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are permitted to dump into the Great Lakes. Additionally, Option E uses the infinitive verb form (“to + base form of verb"- "to + dump" in this sentence) to refer to the intent of the action “allowed”.

E: This answer choice incorrectly uses the simple present tense verb “reduces” to refer to an action that concluded in the past; please remember, the simple past tense is used to refer to actions that concluded in the past, and the simple present tense is only used to indicate actions taking place in the current time frame, indicate habitual actions, state universal truths, and convey information that is permanent in nature. Further, Option E uses the present participle ("verb+ing" - "dumping" in this sentence) construction to refer to the intent of the action “allowed”; please remember, for referring to the purpose or intent of an action, the infinitive verb form (“to + base form of verb") is preferred over the present participle ("verb+ing" - "dumping" in this sentence) construction.

Hence, D is the best answer choice.

Additional Note: Please note that the verb construction "had been allowed", used in Option A, is the passive version of the past perfect tense construction "had allowed", not a past perfect continuous tense verb.

To understand the concept of "Simple Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



To understand the concept of "Past Perfect Tense" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



To understand the concept of "Perfect Continuous Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

D it is.
Past perfect is used to suggest that something is over and done with before the main action of the past. It would be OK to say:

The 1972 agreement replaced the amount of phosphates that had been allowed with a new amount.

But if you are talking about changing an amount, then the amount existed before and continues to exist after the 1972 agreement. The present tense is used to refer to something that exists for all time.

Copernicus revealed that the Earth and the planets all revolve around the Sun.

"Revolve" is in the present tense because it is an action that was then and continues to take place. It would be wrong to say: "...revealed that the Earth and the planets revolved..." or "had revolved."

In the sentence under dicussion, there was and continues to be an amount of phosphates that municipalities can dump. The 1972 agreement reduced the amount, but the amount continues to exist.

I'll try one more example. Suppose I started a new diet last week. I formerly ate all the red meat I wanted. Under the new diet I allow myself to eat only 100 grams a day.

The diet I started last week reduced the amount of red meat I am allowed to eat to 100 grams a day.
It would be wrong to say:

The diet I started last week reduced the amount of red meat I had been allowed to eat to 100 grams a day.


Explanation by 800BOB.(testmagic)
HTH

The gist of the sentence boils down to the restriction the agreement imposed on future action rather than on past action. Obliviously the agreement can't ask those who exceeded the dumping limits prior to 1972, to recover the dumped material from the lakes. So any mention of past tense or past perfect for describing the dumping is null and void. Choices A and B will be incorrect for this reason.

Since it is an agreement that was mooted in 1972, we are required to use past tense to denote the main verb. So C and E which use the present tense verb reduces can be eliminated.

D for using the past tense reduce to expose the timing of the event, and the present tense for some thing the is currently in vogue and that which is going to continue in the future, is the preferred choice.

Hey guys,

Interesting debate - with verb tense errors I firmly believe that logic plays a huge role in your ability to make tough decisions. When looking at the choices, ask yourself "is it possible the events happened in this order?".

Here, is it possible that this law reduced "the amount that municipalities (PREVIOUSLY) had been able to dump"? Remember, "had been" means "before the past-tense event". A law can't retroactively change something like an amount - whatever these cities dumped is already dumped. so "had been" logically doesn't make sense for any of these.

The fact that we're anchored in 1972 at the beginning of the sentence means that we're stuck with the past-tense "reduced" and not "reduces", so that narrows us down to D, the only choice that sets a logical timeline for these events.

Hi All,
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphate that municipalities had been allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.



The intended meaning of the sentence is that till 1972, municipalities were allowed to dump a certain amount of phosphate into the Great Lakes. However, a 1972 agreement between Canada and the US reduced this amount.



The only error in this sentence is the use of past perfect tense “had been allowed”. Let us understand how. Per the sentence, the agreement reduced the amount that municipalities were allowed to dump. Now in this sentence, the verb tense - past perfect tense - had been allowed - is incorrect because it non-sensically implies that municipalities were allowed to dump a certain amount sometime in the past - (they are no longer allowed to dump now, since the action is already completed) and then the next event in the past happened - the agreement reduced this amount. It is not possible to reduce an amount for something that has already happened (had been allowed).

Process of Elimination

Choice A: Incorrect for the reason discussed above.

Choice B: reduced the phosphate amount that municipalities had been dumping. Incorrect. Per this choice the agreement itself did the action of "reduce". This cannot be true because the agreement cannot reduce the amount of phosphates dumped by municipalities. The agreement can only provide limits for this amount. The municipalities have to then take appropriate actions to reduce their emissions to meet the new allowable limits. Removal of “allow” distorts the meaning of the sentence. Also, this choice has the same verb tense issue as in choice A.

Choice C: reduces the phosphate amount municipalities have been allowed to dump. Incorrect. Since agreement took place in 1972, use of present tense “reduces” is incorrect. Also, this sentence states a general fact about the amount of phosphate the municipalities are allowed to dump. This must be stated in the simple present tense. Use of present perfect tense “have been allowed” to state a general fact is not correct.

Choice D: reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump. Correct. This choice conveys the intended meaning. In general, the municipalities are allowed to dump a certain amount of phosphate. However, an agreement between Canada and the US reduced that amount in 1972.

Choice E: reduces the amount of phosphates allowed for dumping by municipalities. Incorrect. This choice has the same verb tense error as in choice C. Use of “for” after “allowed” is unidiomatic.



1. Understand the intended meaning of the sentence.
2. Past perfect tense denotes that the action is already over.
3. Be careful of the choices that remove certain words present in the original choice. Such removals may change the meaning of the sentence.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

Hi everyone,

How can "the amount of phosphates" be correct?

"Phosphates" is a plural count noun. Thus, we can not use "the amount" here!

Could someone help me explain? Thanks in advance!

Hi tinyturtle,

Per the context of the sentence, we know that the municipalities were allowed to dump a certain amount of phosphate in the Great Lakes. This was a fixed amount, say 200 pounds per month. This is a specific amount. Hence, use of singular “amount” is absolutely correct here.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

Hi Shraddha,

I got 2 sentences from https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-gramm ... -vs-fewer/

1. This amount of mashed potatoes should be enough for dinner.

2. This number of baked potatoes should be enough for dinner.

I learned a rule that "Amount" is used for un-countable noun. I donn't understand the first sentence. Could you help explain?

Thanks,

Hi tinyturtle,

Yes, we do use "amount" for uncountable noun. And this rule is in play the first sentence.

1. This amount of mashed potatoes should be enough for dinner.

Mashed potatoes can not be counted because they are crushed and mashed after being boiled. Hence, it is not possible to count them.

2. This number of baked potatoes should be enough for dinner.

However, when a potato is baked, it still remains in its shape and can be counted. Hence, this sentence is correct.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

Thi sis a bit tricky question because someone could think that the agreement was done in 72 but curtail something until NOW and from this the right tense is the present.

But the logic is that: before 72 the amout was 100 for instance, after 72 instead was 50 and NOW what is permitted is that 50.

We do not know if this scenario unfolds untill now or in the future or it stops in 2005, for instance.

As such, the most important thing is to figure out the second scenario; that is: the agreement reduced the amount in the past and the countries was permitted to dump this amount

So C and E are out

We need the amount of X so B is out

A and D. A had allowed is wrong doesnt have any sense, is quite clear

So D remains

This kind of question is tricky, but the answer is always the same. When something occured in the past that made a change, the correct verb tense will always be in the present. The change was made in terms of what we are allowed to now, not in terms of what was done then. There are literally dozens of pages on this question from the past 10 years, but all questions of this type need to have a verb tense in the present. The timeline just doesn't work logically (think Terminator or MiB3) if you keep it this way. To preserve the timeline logic, the verb must be in the present.

Hope this helps!
-Ron

Hi Shraddha,
I've two possible explanations for this sentence so,please let me know whether any one of these is correct, if at all ?

1.Here, if we say that per the sentence and the meaning it's clear that 'till 1972 municipalities were allowed to dump a certain amount of phosphate into the Great Lakes but a 1972 agreement reduced this amount'. Now isn't it evident that the phrase "A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount" provides a time frame that clearly indicates that dumping was there before this agreement in 1972. So no need to use past perfect 'had been allowed to dump' explicitly.

2. 'allowed to dump' and 'reduced this amount' are NOT really related - dumping can occur even if there is no REDUCTION in 1972. So, two unrelated events in the past - no need to use past perfect.

Please let me know your thoughts.

This is not the reason that past perfect cannot be used here. We are not referring to the act of dumping itself, but to a reduction in the AMOUNT that can be dumped. So, it is illogical to say that a 1972 agreement can reduce the amount that was dumped before the agreement was made. The agreement can only reduce the amount that is dumped in the future. So, it makes no sense to use the past perfect tense here.



Again, the way to eliminate past perfect tense here is not to say that the two events are unrelated, but to focus on the fact that the reduction is to be done after the agreement is made.

I hope this helps!

Regards,
Meghna

Pl review my analysis

Meaning

Agreement to reduce the amt of phosphate that was allowed to be dumped

POE

1) A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United
States reduced the amount of phosphates
2) that municipalities had been allowed to dump into the
Great Lakes.

SV correct
Agreement...reduced
municipalities...had been allowed

Modifier
into the Great Lakes...is correctly placed

Meaning Correct

Parallelism
B/w C and the US...correct

Pronoun-

Idiom
allowed to...correct

Other-

Verb

Here though even after the agreement municipalities will dump the waste (of reduced amt) the sequence is

Municipalities allowed to dump waste --->Agreement to reduce waste----> Municipalities allowed to dump less waste

POE A correct

As per the sequence it is correct to state that municipalities had been allowed, because agreement happened later

So why is D correct here?
Also, what is the difference in amt of phosphate and phosphate amount

Dear Ashish,

As I explained in my post above, according to the intended meaning of the sentence, the agreement can only reduce the amount of phosphates that can be dumped AFTER the agreement is made. "Had been dumped" refers to the amount that was dumped BEFORE the agreement was made. So, logically, it doesn't make sense to say that the agreement can reduce this amount. The correct answer must use either the simple past tense or the present tense.

There is no real difference in meaning between "amount of phosphates" and "phosphate amount", but idiomatically, we use "number of" and "amount of". So, "amount of phosphates" is better.

I hope this helps with your doubts.

Regards,
Meghna