GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 19 Jul 2018, 00:54

### 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

# A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce

Author Message
VP
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 1427
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Nov 2009, 19:42
1
"Had been allowed" makes it seem that the agreement is no longer in effect and "are allowed" makes it seem that the agreement is still in effect.

That's the reason I chose D.

Not 100% sure if correct though.
SVP
Affiliations: HEC
Joined: 28 Sep 2009
Posts: 1614
Concentration: Economics, Finance
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V44
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Nov 2009, 20:07
I think it makes sense now. Thanks everyone. Here's my crack at it.

A - "Had been allowed" is not correct. "Are allowed" (present tense) is needed.
B - "Phosphate amount" is not correct.
C - See B above.
D - Correct.
E - "Dumping by municipalities" is passive and can be more concise.
_________________
Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2009
Posts: 131
Location: Montreal
Schools: Harvard, Yale, HEC
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Nov 2009, 10:00
Very interesting question, lets discuss

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
(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
VP
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 1427
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Nov 2009, 10:04
ezinis wrote:
Very interesting question, lets discuss

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
(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

answer D because the agreement is still ongoing....are allowed to dump rather than had been allowed to dump. Had been allowed to dump makes it seem as though the agreement no longer holds.

just an opinion not fact. like to get another opinion
Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2009
Posts: 131
Location: Montreal
Schools: Harvard, Yale, HEC
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Nov 2009, 10:34
The "allowed to dump" part is debatable to me. It should read "could have been allowed to dump.." because the agreement specifies the amount you can dump so you could not dump any more than a specified limit. The OA's reasoning is kinda circular to me...
Manager
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Posts: 204
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Nov 2009, 11:07
I agree with lagomez

D for me as well
Manager
Joined: 11 Sep 2009
Posts: 83
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Dec 2009, 20:27
A – past perfect indicates that municipalities will never be allowed to dump again. Moreover, agreement cannot reduce something that had been (allow end that reduce?)
B and C – never use quantity/time period in forms of adjective
E – awkward structure (passive) – dumping by muni or allowed by muni.

D for me
Manager
Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 184
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Dec 2009, 00:05
IMO D

they were still allowed - so, 'had been allowed' is preferably wrong
_________________

I do not suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute of it.

Intern
Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 45
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Dec 2009, 16:49
IMO D. This is an OG question. What is the OA?
_________________

A kudos would greatly help

Tuhin

Current Student
Joined: 22 Dec 2009
Posts: 303
Schools: Yale SOM
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jan 2010, 21:35
IMO D. The agreement (in 1972, the past) reduced the amount the municipalities are allowed to dump from the time of the agreement onward. Therefore, it should be 'are allowed to dump'.

This is an OG question. OA is D.
Intern
Joined: 14 May 2010
Posts: 46
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jul 2010, 03:50
Hi

I am having a hard time figuring out why this is supposedly wrong :

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

I chose A) , correct as it is, the OG has this answer instead :

D) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump

According to the explanation, "reduced" requires that either "are allowed" or "were allowed" to be used, since "were" is not among the options, the explanation is that you can assume that the agreement is still in effect, then you use are

They have "had been allowed" as wrong because its something in the past before reducing, but why is that wrong anyways ? Isn't the rate before reduction is what has been reduced ? I think had been allowed should be right no ?
Manager
Joined: 28 Jul 2009
Posts: 92
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jul 2010, 07:30
Well .. we are always supposed to choose the best answer.
For you help ... here is a good explanation ... hope it helps ..
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/og-sc-62-t580.html
Manager
Joined: 20 Feb 2009
Posts: 69
Location: chennai
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jul 2010, 09:38
Passive constructions are not accespted mostly in GMAT.
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Dec 2009
Posts: 385
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jul 2010, 10:02
lnarayanan wrote:
Passive constructions are not accespted mostly in GMAT.

that's not the issue w/ this problem.

are allowed
have been allowed

both are passively constructed.

Back to the original post
kuharido wrote:
They have "had been allowed" as wrong because its something in the past before reducing, but why is that wrong anyways ? Isn't the rate before reduction is what has been reduced ? I think had been allowed should be right no ?

the problem with "had been allowed" is more of a logical one:
1) agreement reduced amount of phosphate
2) was (or had been) allowed <to dump> (the infinitive "to dump" is actually used here as an adverb, modifying "allowed"; don't think of the verb in this clause as "dumped")

so now ask this question: is the "allowance" before the "agreement"? No, it should be the other way around, the agreement reduced the "allowance". (The dumping may occure BEFORE the agreement, but the main verb is not "dumped"). So it really doesn't make sense to use "had been..." to stress that the allowance occurred before the agreement.

I'm not sure how that helps, but that's how I reasoned the problem.
_________________

kudos if you like me (or my post)

Intern
Joined: 14 May 2010
Posts: 46
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jul 2010, 16:43
@Acc3ss Thanks for the link, I had ro read that a couple of times but its starting to sink in

@Inarayanan, thanks but yeah the main issue is not the passive construction, as adalfu noted

@adalfu That does help ! I am still trying to drill it through my brain, and the observation about the verb/adverb is spot on, thanks !

At this point I think the most clear way for my to reason this problem (really weird problem lol) is the following :

Past Participle : Event occured at time 100
Past : Event occured at time 200

The general rule is that PP .... I just said pp, hehe, ok so pp occurs before the past, always

Past participle : had been allowed (this amount is x)
Past : reduced

reduced, which is at time 200, cannot reduce something before it or it existed, as such, the amount x, by "had been allowed" syntax, sets the amount at time 100, reduced can't retroactively reduce something before it

What still bugs me though, is that its not really reducing something before it, I mean, can't we understand that the amount of allowance was constant all up to the agreement ? meaning that at time 100 (had been reduced) and time (200) the actual reduction, the amount was unaltered and it continued all the way to the past (reduce at time 200)

I know it sounds like analyzing it too much but I am just not getting it any other way
Manager
Joined: 20 Feb 2009
Posts: 69
Location: chennai
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jul 2010, 07:43
Yha.. i hope that i understood the actual problem... But I am not clear about the solution
Shall we reatate
where to use " past perfect + past participle" passive (Had been allowed )
&
Where to use " present + past participle" passive ( are allowed )
for " past perfect + past participle" - two action should be taken place.
One should be completed while other is in starting position.
I hope here it is not the case.

Moreover

A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates into the great lakes "(Main sentence ).
“that municipalities had been allowed to dump” - is an essential relative clause
modefier. i think we don't need to use " had been + past participle " in modefier.
Plz suggest whether i am in right track or not...
Retired Moderator
Status: I wish!
Joined: 21 May 2010
Posts: 750
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2010, 15:02
Past perfect is used to indicate something that happened before something else - and because we are only given one sentence. Hence A is out.

D is correct.
_________________

http://drambedkarbooks.com/

Manager
Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Posts: 147
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2010, 22:02
D for me too..
This is an OG question..
_________________

Gotta hit the 700 score this time... 3rd time lucky !
Give me some kudos... Like you, even I need them badly

Manager
Joined: 14 Jun 2010
Posts: 235
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Aug 2010, 01:31
Has to be D. Was wondering initially how it could be A.....Thankfully it is not
Manager
Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Posts: 68
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Aug 2010, 02:36
Thanks dolly12.

The provided links is providing the proper explanation for this question.

Cheers!
Ravi
_________________

If you like my most PLEASE consider giving me KUDOS!!!! Need them Badly!!!

Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce   [#permalink] 09 Aug 2010, 02:36

Go to page   Previous    1  ...  10   11   12   13   14   15   16  ...  22    Next  [ 427 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Events & Promotions

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.