A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce : GMAT Sentence Correction (SC) - Page 18
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 24 Jan 2017, 09:49

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 18 Jun 2004
Posts: 103
Location: san jose , CA
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 74 [3] , given: 0

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2004, 23:51
3
KUDOS
60
This post was
BOOKMARKED
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.

(A) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump
(B) reduced the phosphate amount that municipalities had been dumping
(C) reduces the phosphate amount municipalities have been allowed to dump
(D) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump
(E) reduces the amount of phosphates allowed for dumping by municipalities
Manager
Joined: 02 Nov 2012
Posts: 95
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Strategy
WE: Other (Computer Software)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 35

Re: meaning issue in SC OG Question [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Nov 2012, 02:04
Sachin9 wrote:
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.

(A) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump
(B) reduced the phosphate amount that municipalities had been dumping
(C) reduces the phosphate amount municipalities have been allowed to dump
(D) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump
(E) reduces the amount of phosphates allowed for dumping by municipalities

[Reveal] Spoiler:
OA = D

I believe D should have been 'were' allowed to dump

This is 2012.. muncipalities have been dumping since years immemorial. .
in 1972, an agreement was passed that reduced something back then... not now. .

Am I correct?

and Please also let us know the right usage of 'had been' with some examples. .

Sachin,

'are' allowed to dump is correct because the 1972-agreement is still in effect. Hence, 'were' changes the meaning and is wrong. Though it is 2012, municipalities are still not allowed to dump more than x amount of phosphates because of the agreement.

Does this make sense?

For your second question, 'had been' refers to a time (A) in the past before another time (B) in the past such that A is before B. Take a look at this example:

..................A.......................................B......... ----> Timeline

Both the events 'reading' and 'arrived' are past. More importantly, considering the timeline, A happened before B. The event that is more in the past gets the 'had been' prefixed to it. Thus, 'had been reading'.

Hope this is clear.
_________________

TH

Give me +1 Kudos if my post helped!

Intern
Joined: 04 Dec 2011
Posts: 9
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

11 Dec 2012, 03:54
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!
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1996
Followers: 2089

Kudos [?]: 7181 [0], given: 267

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2012, 16:06
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.
_________________

| '4 out of Top 5' Instructors on gmatclub | 70 point improvement guarantee | www.e-gmat.com

Intern
Joined: 14 Aug 2011
Posts: 23
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 17

### Show Tags

13 Dec 2012, 00:22
I also did not understand the usage of the amount of since it is phosphateS
VP
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1096
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 528 [0], given: 70

### Show Tags

13 Dec 2012, 08:01
egmat wrote:
Hi All

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).

I am confused when you say both A and B has the same tense error i.e. the job is no more done...

I advised him because I had done the job in the past.<<<It means i am not doing that job>>>
I advised him because I had been doing it.<<<It means i am doing the job>>> or <<<I am no more doing the job>>>

Also what is the difference between "reduced the amount of phosphate" and "reduced the phosphate amount.."

Can we blindly infer that with which ever action "had" is used that will mean that action itself is over.......

Thanks
Archit
Intern
Joined: 04 Dec 2011
Posts: 9
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

13 Dec 2012, 23:10

I got 2 sentences from http://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,
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1996
Followers: 2089

Kudos [?]: 7181 [0], given: 267

### Show Tags

14 Dec 2012, 06:05
tinyturtle wrote:

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.
_________________

| '4 out of Top 5' Instructors on gmatclub | 70 point improvement guarantee | www.e-gmat.com

Intern
Joined: 04 Dec 2011
Posts: 9
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

16 Dec 2012, 04:26
Thank you so much Shraddha. I got it now.
Manager
Joined: 26 Jan 2012
Posts: 78
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 14

### Show Tags

30 Dec 2012, 09:03
A – No necessity to change the tense. Eliminate.
B – Amount of phosphate is better than phosphate amount. Eliminate
C – Same as B
D – Same tense. Keep
E – “that are” allowed for dumping is better. Plus its passive. Eliminate
Manager
Joined: 26 Jan 2012
Posts: 78
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 14

### Show Tags

30 Dec 2012, 09:04
A – No necessity to change the tense. Eliminate.
B – Amount of phosphate is better than phosphate amount. Eliminate
C – Same as B
D – Same tense. Keep
E – “that are” allowed for dumping is better. Plus its passive. Eliminate
Manager
Joined: 26 Jan 2012
Posts: 78
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 14

### Show Tags

30 Dec 2012, 09:05
A – No necessity to change the tense. Eliminate.
B – Amount of phosphate is better than phosphate amount. Eliminate
C – Same as B
D – Same tense. Keep
E – “that are” allowed for dumping is better. Plus its passive. Eliminate
Moderator
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3097
Followers: 788

Kudos [?]: 6576 [0], given: 1023

Re: Verb tense & participles [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Mar 2013, 12:49
Hi

first of all the part of the sentence must be always underlined. Thanks

Secondly: 1000 series is not a good resource to study at all.

B is wron because the right verbe tense is had been allowed to dump not dumping

D is wrong because it seems to suggest that the permission to municipalities is given by itself and not by an agreement. The verb must point out to the real subject of the sentece: the agreement NOT municipalities

regards
_________________
Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 136
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 3

Re: Verb tense & participles [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Mar 2013, 17:28
i strongly feel that D sud be the answer . in fact A is wrong !!
A gives a nonsensical meaning that the agreement of 1972 reduced some thing that these countries had dumped in the past !! u can reduce the amount of something that these countries are dumping at the moment and not of something that they had dumped

Quote:
carcass wrote:D is wrong because it seems to suggest that the permission to municipalities is given by itself and not by an agreement. The verb must point out to the real subject of the sentece: the agreement NOT municipalities

no where it is suggesting such a meaning !! in fact all that D means is that some agreement reduced the amount of some blah blah thing that these municipalities are allowed to dump
Manager
Status: Tougher times ...
Joined: 04 Nov 2012
Posts: 51
Location: India
GMAT 1: 480 Q32 V25
WE: General Management (Manufacturing)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 44

Re: Verb tense & participles [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Mar 2013, 05:38
kabilank87 wrote:
neha24 wrote:
i strongly feel that D sud be the answer . in fact A is wrong !!
A gives a nonsensical meaning that the agreement of 1972 reduced some thing that these countries had dumped in the past !! u can reduce the amount of something that these countries are dumping at the moment and not of something that they had dumped

Quote:
carcass wrote:D is wrong because it seems to suggest that the permission to municipalities is given by itself and not by an agreement. The verb must point out to the real subject of the sentece: the agreement NOT municipalities

no where it is suggesting such a meaning !! in fact all that D means is that some agreement reduced the amount of some blah blah thing that these municipalities are allowed to dump

In "D" can we use the present tense " are " ? Since the entire argument is in past, why can't we use "were" , instead of "are".

in your explanation of "A", since there are 2 actions happened in the past ( the agreement reduced ... and the countries dumped ), and the action dumped occurs earlier , what's wrong in using " past perfect - had dumped " ? - It is according to the definition of usage of past perfect in manhattan SC.

Similarly in "B" .. the background event is " countries dumping " and the interrupting foreground event is " the agreement reducing what the countries dumping " .. i feel this is also correct according to the usage of past progressive in manhattan SC.

_________________

Kabilan.K
Kudos is a boost to participate actively and contribute more to the forum

Intern
Joined: 25 Mar 2012
Posts: 23
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
GPA: 3.04
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 1

Re: Verb tense & participles [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Mar 2013, 07:59
kabilank87 wrote:
1. A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.

(A) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump
(B) reduced the phosphate amount that municipalities had been dumping
(C) reduces the phosphate amount municipalities have been allowed to dump
(D) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump
(E) reduces the amount of phosphates allowed for dumping by municipalities

The correct answer is A. Why not B or D ?

A used past perfect "had been". This is not needed as no 2 past events are chronologically arranged. Likewise, the usage of past perfect continuous is also not needed in option B.
Intern
Joined: 25 Mar 2012
Posts: 23
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
GPA: 3.04
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 1

Re: Verb tense & participles [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Mar 2013, 19:04
kabilank87 wrote:
anandrajakrishnan wrote:
kabilank87 wrote:
1. A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.

(A) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump
(B) reduced the phosphate amount that municipalities had been dumping
(C) reduces the phosphate amount municipalities have been allowed to dump
(D) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump
(E) reduces the amount of phosphates allowed for dumping by municipalities

The correct answer is A. Why not B or D ?

A used past perfect "had been". This is not needed as no 2 past events are chronologically arranged. Likewise, the usage of past perfect continuous is also not needed in option B.

Hi anandrajakrishnan / Neha

In " A " i see the 2 events are chronologically arranged .

By assuming we are in 1972 when the agreement have just passed, we would have told that " The countries have been dumping it for some years blah blanh blah .. and the agreement reduced that( Dumping). The " dumping" started in the past and continues till the agreement came into effect and reduced it. Since it involves 2 different time complex time periods. So i think past perfect / perfect continuous should be used here. But i am not certain about it.

There is a subtle difference in meaning here. Option A changes the meaning to "the agreement reduced the amount of phosphates that munipality has dumped so far". How can the agreement reduce the amount of already dumped phosphate?
Option D gives the meaning outright that "the amount of phosphates that the municipalities were allowed to dump is reduced after the agreement"
Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2009
Posts: 77
Location: India
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 3

Re: Verb tense & participles [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Mar 2013, 23:05
kabilank87 wrote:
1. A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.

(A) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump
(B) reduced the phosphate amount that municipalities had been dumping
(C) reduces the phosphate amount municipalities have been allowed to dump
(D) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump
(E) reduces the amount of phosphates allowed for dumping by municipalities

The correct answer is A. Why not B or D ?

anandrajakrishnan,

You are right - How can the agreement reduce the amount of already dumped phosphate?
But the agreement can put a restriction on the amount of phosphate to be dumped.

Moreover, D changes the tense flow of the sentence by the usage of 'are'.
Hope this clarifies.

Regds
Sony
_________________

A bend in the road is not the end of the road unless you fail to take a turn.....

Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 452
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 197 [0], given: 70

### Show Tags

07 May 2013, 23:26
All duplicate threads on this topic have been merged.

VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1420
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 176

Kudos [?]: 1339 [0], given: 62

Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 06:15
rahul wrote:
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.

(A) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump
(B) reduced the phosphate amount that municipalities had been dumping
(C) reduces the phosphate amount municipalities have been allowed to dump
(D) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump
(E) reduces the amount of phosphates allowed for dumping by municipalities

I feel the answer is A. It would be good if I get the correct explanation for D to be the answer.
Moreover, I would like to negate some points made about the choice A. In A, actually the agreement is not making any change in the amount already dumped but rather in the amount that was allowed.

Here "had" is acting as double past such that it distinguishes two events. Initially municipal communities were allowed to dump some amount, but as a result of 1972 agreement, that amount has been altered. Please make a note that these events are in past tense.

PS: I have been out of study mode for a while, so please forgive if I commit a mistake.
Alternate explanations are most welcome.
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 452
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 197 [0], given: 70

Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 06:37
This is an OG (OG12#74) question and explanation by GMAC, without any change, is as follows.

An agreement that occurred in 1972 is correctly described with the past tense verb reduced. Since the dumping continued after the date of the agreement, the past perfect verb had been allowed should instead be the present are allowed (if the agreement remained in effect when the sentence was written) or the past were allowed (if the agreement was no longer in effect when the sentence was written). Since were allowed does not appear in any of the options, we can assume that the correct verb tense is are allowed. The phrase amount of phosphates is clear and idiomatically correct, whereas phosphate amount is not idiomatic.

A) Had been allowed should be are allowed.
B) The phosphate amount should be the amount of phosphates; the omission of some form of allow is incorrect since the agreement changed not the amount dumped, but the amount permitted to be dumped.
C) Present tense reduces should be the past tense reduced; the phosphate amount should be the amount of phosphates; have been allowed should be are allowed.
D) Correct. The past tense reduced is correctly used in this sentence to describe a past action, and the present tense are allowed is used to describe the present situation.
E Present tense reduces should be the past tense reduced; allowed for dumping is an incorrect idiom; allowed for dumping by municipalities is awkward.

Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce   [#permalink] 08 May 2013, 06:37

Go to page   Previous    1  ...  10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21    Next  [ 416 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States 0 30 Dec 2012, 09:03
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States 0 25 Oct 2007, 14:38
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States 0 30 Dec 2012, 09:05
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States 0 01 Jul 2007, 03:05
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States 0 02 Mar 2007, 15:43
Display posts from previous: Sort by