The preliminary agreement to what was to be ...

Official Explanation

Answer: A First, note the two choices for the first underlined word: "of" and "to." The correct idiom is "agree to" in cases like this. The treaty is what is to be agreed to. That eliminates (D) and (E). Choice (B) may sound appealing if you only read the underlined portion, but when combined with the end of the sentence, there is the senseless construction "before the final treaty in March 1913 before the end of 1710." (C) changes the verb tenses in a way not wholly inappropriate (past tense for 1711 and 1713, past perfect for 1710), but both instances of "what was" are superfluous. (A) is structured in a way that all the included words are necessary, and it is correct.

Dear PUNEETSCHDV,
I'm happy to help.

Here's version (A):
The preliminary agreement to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process started moving before the end of 1710.
This is one of the very tricky things about Parallelism. In parallel structure, we are allowed to drop common words. Sometimes, it's only one or two words that are dropped, and sometimes it's the central [noun] + [verb] structure of a clause. Here's version (A) again, with the omitted words included:
The preliminary agreement to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and the final treaty [was not to be signed until it was] in March 1713, but the peace process started moving before the end of 1710.
You see, that version is longer and repetitive, and therefore more awkward. This second version would NEVER be correct on the GMAT, but the first one could be. One of the skills you need on the SC is recognizing parallelism (the GMAT LOVES to test Parallelism): this means looking at something such as the first version and recognizing that what is meant is the second version. This is hard to do, because it's not just about grammar --- you really have to think about the meaning of what is said. That is precisely why the GMAT loves testing Parallelism so much. Here are a couple blogs you may find helpful:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/parallelis ... orrection/
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-paral ... ce-inside/

Does all this make sense?
Mike

The preliminary agreement to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process started moving before the end of 1710.

There are two errors here

1.There is a 3-2 split among answer choices between agreement to and agreement of.

The agreement to what was to be treaty of sth dos not make sense to me.
The agreement of sth was not signed makes sense.

2. Also was not to be signed changes the intended meaning that the agreement was not singed until X and neither its final treaty until Y but peace process started way before both of them.

(A) to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process started moving

(both the errors listed above are in the given sentence. Incorrect choice.)

(B) to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, but the peace process started to move before the final treaty in March 1713

peace process contradiction is misplace gnenerating eaning error.
Also above errors are repeated.

(C) to what was the Treaty of Utrecht was not signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process had started to move

error 1 is repeated while the other is resolved.
to move is awkward(for me. )

(D) of what was the Treaty of Utrecht was not signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process had started moving

both the errors are resolved and past perfect continuous tense is correct in this case.

(E) of what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and of the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process was started moving

error 2 repeated in this option
past tense was + moving is wrong here.

Where did I go wrong. souvik101990 please explain

Dear Mechmeera,
I'm happy to respond.

First of all, my friend, I am going to give you some constructive criticism. Your short post is extremely casual and sloppy. This is a public forum: anyone could read your words here. Any person reading your words might someday be your boss, supervisor, your colleague, your partner, your customer, your supplier, etc. etc. You only get one chance in life to make a first impression on someone, and first impressions have long-lasting effects. You always need to be thinking about the impression you make and how it makes you appear to others. Furthermore, presumably you want to achieve success on the GMAT. To achieve an excellent score, you need to make a habit of excellence. You need to bring the best of yourself habitually to any and every endeavor. Only went you are comfortable bringing the best of yourself by habit to each situation will you be able to maintain that high level during the stress of the GMAT. Don't think in terms of what would be easy or convenient. Think in terms of what would represent the very best you can do. Do this in all little things, and it will bring your GMAT preparation to another level.

As to your questions . . ..

1) idioms for "agree" and "agreement"
agree with: I agree with another person.
agree to: I agree to a law or condition or some other inanimate thing.
The idioms for "agreement" are a little different.
"an agreement of" -- this would be said of the people or parties who agree (e.g. "an agreement of the USA and China")
"an agreement to" --- as with "agree to," the object is a law or condition or something inanimate (e.g. "an agreement to the Kyoto Protocols")

I would say: don't worry about item #3 --- it's not important for the GMAT. In fact, this question is not a very good question: it is not really worth diving into depth trying to make sense of it. You will be much better served by studying high quality practice questions. Here's a high quality question:
https://gmat.magoosh.com/questions/3263

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hi Mike, love your explanations. They're very detailed and have helped me a lot so far.

I selected option C, and I eliminated A, B & E because they did not use the past perfect form - 'had started moving'
But in your explanation, you mentioned that using it when it is obvious because of the dates, is redundant and should be avoided. According to the MGMAT SC book this sentence is considered correct-
Right: Bv 1945. the United States HAD BEEN at war for several years.
It is very evident here that it happened before 1945. But it still used.
Also, in the link you've mentioned, the following sentence is given as an example for correct usage of the past perfect tense.
6) By the time Charles Darwin published The Descent of Man in 1871, Gregor Mendel already had discovered, during his famous pea plant experiments, the genetic principles that ultimately would explain and justify Darwin’s conclusions.
Here also, it is very evident.
In my opinion, using the past perfect tense is wrong here, because of the word 'before' which makes it obvious that the action happened before the date. The galore of dates has nothing to do with this. Please tell me if I'm right here or am I missing something?
If I am right, the second example on your blog is wrong as well. Because it has the word 'already' and using the past perfect tense in that sentence, makes it redundant.

Thank you very much!

Dear icefrog,
I'm happy to respond.

My friend, here's the tricky thing. Grammar is not mathematics. Mathematics has clear black vs. white, right vs. wrong procedures and answers. Grammar is not like that: a few things are totally right or totally wrong, but there are many shades of gray.

All language depends on meaning. Too often, GMAT students focus on grammar and avoid meaning, but meaning trumps grammar. In everyday conversation and academic writer, the speaker's or author's intention gives direction and focus to the words. This is deeply true on the GMAT SC as well, and students often fail to appreciate what this implies.

The use of the past perfect tense, with respect to another past tense, is one way to convey that one past action preceded another past action. Other elements of the sentence might also indicate this. There are a few issues.
1) a rhetorically sound sentence has clarity -- We use the past perfect in order to clarify the time-sequence, if it is not obvious that other elements would do that. In the MGMAT sentence, if we said:
By 1945, the United States was at war. = this implies that the was some other sequence of events before 1945, but that war itself started only in 1945 (this does not correspond to the historical facts).
By 1945, the United States was at war for several years. = this sound wrong. This is precisely what someone would say who didn't understand how to use the past perfect correctly. You see, "for several years" is a phrase that implies that it had been happening for a while, but it's not logical definitive by itself. To use this phrase with the ordinary past is jarringly wrong. The MGMAT version is the only correct version:
By 1945, the United States had been at war for several years. = That's a correct and logically satisfying sentence, because the expectation created by the phrase "for several years" is matched and fulfilled by the explicit use of the past perfect tense. The whole sentence works together. A well-designed sentence can create an expectation and then fulfill it: in a way, that's one of the functions of parallelism.

2) another issue is emotional emphasis in the sentence. Consider my sentence from the blog:
By the time Charles Darwin published The Descent of Man in 1871, Gregor Mendel already had discovered, during his famous pea plant experiments, the genetic principles that ultimately would explain and justify Darwin’s conclusions.
Part of what is happening here is similar to the last sentence. The word "already" creates an expectation, and the use of the past perfect matches and fulfills that expectation. Also, the use of the adverb "already" with the past perfect creates a subtle emphasis. It is more subtle than, say, use of italics or bold. It just creates this small emotional nudge, as if to say: "wow, can you believe this?" It is a subtle way to call attention to the difference in times, ultimately to the historical irony that Mendel's work on genetics actually preceded Darwin's book. You see, the academic language of the GMAT is very understated, and when emotional emphasis of any sort appears, it's very subtle. It is much less obvious than it would be in popular writing. For example, often just a subtle emphasis will bring out the implicit irony of a situation. Many SC questions in the OG involve some subtle degree of irony.

3) Clarity is good, but too much clarity is bad. Let's look at version (C) of this SC question.
The preliminary agreement to what was the Treaty of Utrecht was not signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process had started to move before the end of 1710.
The construction "what was the Treaty of Utrecht" is an awkward failure that lands between the correct structure "what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht" and just the plain and simple "Treaty of Utrecht." That's one problem with (C).
The use of the past perfect is also a problem here. Again, this is subtle. This sentence focuses on the historical sequence of events, and we have dates and years all over the place. Now, the sequence of events is very clear, almost mathematically clear. We have absolutely no doubt about what happened when, and what happened before or after what. In this environment, use of the past perfect is overkill. It crosses the line and makes things too obvious. When things are too obvious, they are redundant, and redundant is always wrong on the GMAT.

So, you see, the boundaries here are very sophisticated and subtle, and not at all amenable to simply dichotomies --- if this is right, that is wrong. In the bigger picture, especially for a non-native speaker approaching English as a second language, you simply cannot get to mastery on GMAT SC by trying to learn some list of "rules." Yes, the rules of grammar are important, and the more deeply you can understand each one it all its nuances, the better you will understand, but ultimately, you cannot develop an "ear" for sophisticated grammar without reading. I highly recommend this blog:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2014/how-to-imp ... bal-score/
Nothing replaces the habit of reading for building a deep intuition for the language.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

There is no infinitive in the part you mentioned. (Infinitive: to + verb , e.g.: to go, to play, to read etc.).

Now, coming to your question, "agreement to" should ideally be followed by a noun or a pronoun ( agreement to something). Here the pronoun "what" correctly follows "agreement to". This pronoun refers to the something that "was to be the Treaty of Utrecht". It is alright to replace "something that was to be.." by " what was to be...".

Merged topics. Please, search before posting questions!

I have a problem in that
The action is in double past than (had) is used in the action which happened before another action

Pls help

Posted from my mobile device

(A) to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process started moving
Option A is the correct option

(B) to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, but the peace process started to move before the final treaty in March 1713 ( the actual date of the final treaty is not mentioned anywhere. This option means that the final treaty was actually signed in 1713)
Hence option B is incorrect

(C) to what was the Treaty of Utrecht was not signed (it should be ‘was not to be’ since 1711 was just the intended date)until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process had started to move
Hence option C is incorrect

(D) of what was the Treaty of Utrecht was not signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process had started moving
Same mistake as in option C
Hence option D is incorrect

(E) of what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and of the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process was started moving( wrong tense)
Hence option E is incorrect

A) to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process started moving
This has everything in place let us hang on to it

(B) to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, but the peace process started to move before the final treaty in March 1713
This doesn't have the right sequel since we don't know whether it was before march 13 or sepltember 1711

(C) to what was the Treaty of Utrecht was not signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process had started to move
the addition of but in the last phase isn't appropriate

(D) of what was the Treaty of Utrecht was not signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process had started moving
Similar problem as C

(E) of what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and of the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process was started moving
The starting phase with if is off the course even if we ignore that there is inherent mistake that was started isn't the right approach of tense

Hence IMO A

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.