NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 24 Apr 2024, 16:28 It is currently 24 Apr 2024, 16:28
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

I found this one debatable. This is from OG 11th edition

User avatar
vinay3
Intern
Intern
Joined: 24 Sep 2010
Posts: 20
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
I found this one debatable. This is from OG 11th edition [#permalink] New post   13 Oct 2010, 17:45
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
I found this one debatable. This is from OG 11th edition Q62.

"A 1972 agreement... reduced the amount of phosphates municipalities ____ allowed to dump into the Great Lakes".

1. Are
2. Were
3. Had been

The original choices could be reduced down to the 1 and 3 (but I have included 2 as an additional possibility).

The OG is 1. However, I had selected 3, and I still think it should be either 2 or 3. My rationale is that the agreement did something in 1972, and not today. This should mean that it reduced the amount M were allowed to dump or had been allowed to dump, and not are allowed to dump back then.

What is there was another agreement in 1992 that increased the amount - the one in 1972 didnt decrease the amount M ARE allowed to dump then isnt it.

Is this one of those gray areas where we blindly agree with OG or am I missing some key grammatical rule here?



Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Sentence Correction (EA only) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
User avatar
phoenixrulzz
Manager
Manager
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 91
Own Kudos [?]: 6 [0]
Given Kudos: 3
Send PM
Re: I found this one debatable. This is from OG 11th edition [#permalink] New post   13 Oct 2010, 23:37
Its 'ARE' because the agreement is still in effect..
User avatar
shekharvineet
Manager
Manager
Joined: 24 Aug 2010
Posts: 103
Own Kudos [?]: 157 [0]
Given Kudos: 18
Location: Finland
Concentration: Entrepreneuship- Sustainable Manufacturing
Schools:Admitted: IESE($$),HEC, RSM,Esade
 Q43  V27 GMAT 2: 700  Q45  V41
GPA: 2.1
WE 1: 3.5 years international
Send PM
Re: I found this one debatable. This is from OG 11th edition [#permalink] New post   14 Oct 2010, 00:02
The answer should be ARE. Because the agreement is still in place. If the passage mentioned that there is a new agreement replacing the 1972 one, then we should use WERE to denote past tense because then the agreement is no longer valid. But since the agreement is still valid, we are correct in using the word ARE as it denotes present tense.
User avatar
vinay3
Intern
Intern
Joined: 24 Sep 2010
Posts: 20
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: I found this one debatable. This is from OG 11th edition [#permalink] New post   14 Oct 2010, 17:42
Thanks guys. Although I see your point, I also think that #1 is based on the assumption that the agreement is still valid - which thus requires outside knowledge.

Now, thinking more about this, I think GMAT intentionally didn't provide #2 as an option. Perhaps #3 is wrong because "had been" is unnecessary - even if the agreement weren't valid today, "were" would be enough:

- A 1972 agreement reduced the amount of Phosphates Muncipalities WERE allowed to dump.. - sounds prefectly alright. Hence, "had been" actually gets ruled out by POE. So the question boils down to #1 (#2 wasn't provided).



Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Sentence Correction (EA only) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: I found this one debatable. This is from OG 11th edition [#permalink]
14 Oct 2010, 17:42
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6920 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
MikeScarn
Current Student
278 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions