It is currently 17 Nov 2017, 16:36

### 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: 102

Kudos [?]: 121 [7], given: 0

Location: san jose , CA

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2004, 00:51
7
KUDOS
95
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Edit: The discussion is locked. Go HERE for further discussion.

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

Last edited by broall on 30 Aug 2017, 18:37, edited 3 times in total.
Too many pages for this topic. Do not try to unlock this post again!

Kudos [?]: 121 [7], given: 0

VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1378

Kudos [?]: 1701 [0], given: 62

Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 07:15
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.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 1701 [0], given: 62

Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 418

Kudos [?]: 239 [0], given: 70

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

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 07:37
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.

Kudos [?]: 239 [0], given: 70

VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1378

Kudos [?]: 1701 [0], given: 62

Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 07:51
Thanks for the correct explanation.
But I have one issue here. Since the dumping was being done earlier than 1972, so shouldn't it be "had been"? They were allowed to dump some certain quantity before those alterations, hence I feel this way.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 1701 [0], given: 62

Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 418

Kudos [?]: 239 [0], given: 70

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

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 08:04
To elaborate more on option A:

Where there are two events -- one with past perfect and one with simple past -- past perfect denotes the earlier event and simple past denotes later event. "Had been " is used to mean that earlier event is completed when the later event took place.

The sentence here is implying that the agreement was made at a time after the completion of the action dumping, i.e., when no more dumping is going on. But, that is not possible as nobody makes agreement on reducing something which is not existing.

As "had been" is making the dumping non-existent at the time of agreement, option A is wrong.

Kudos [?]: 239 [0], given: 70

Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 418

Kudos [?]: 239 [0], given: 70

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

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 08:26
Here is another explanation on "had been" vs "are" in this question from Aristotle prep (showing only the relevant part from the explanation):

"In case you are confused whether to go with the past perfect tense ‘had’ or the present tense ‘are’, think about it this way. The sentence already has a simple past tense in ‘reduced’. Now to go with the past perfect tense we must imply that the dumping happened before the agreement ‘reduced’ something. This makes no sense since the dumping continued after the agreement. So we need to go with the present tense verb ‘are’."

Kudos [?]: 239 [0], given: 70

VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1378

Kudos [?]: 1701 [0], given: 62

Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 08:40
doe007 wrote:
Here is another explanation on "had been" vs "are" in this question from Aristotle prep (showing only the relevant part from the explanation):

"In case you are confused whether to go with the past perfect tense ‘had’ or the present tense ‘are’, think about it this way. The sentence already has a simple past tense in ‘reduced’. Now to go with the past perfect tense we must imply that the dumping happened before the agreement ‘reduced’ something. This makes no sense since the dumping continued after the agreement. So we need to go with the present tense verb ‘are’."

IMO, its clear that the restriction was on the certain pre-decided limit on the amount that was allowed to dump and not on whether dumping was allowed or not. "Had been" implies that something was happening before a certain event. After that event, something other than the previous started happening.

By D, IMO it seems that the alteration was done for the year 2013 onwards and that is why it is using "are".
Isn't that so?
_________________

Kudos [?]: 1701 [0], given: 62

Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 418

Kudos [?]: 239 [0], given: 70

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

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 10:01
I can understand your logic as well as GMAC's.

My understanding on GMAC's explanation is:
The agreement in 1972 set the allowed amount of phosphates that can be dumped. Now, if that amount is still effective, we need "are". But, if the amount was changed sometime after 1972, we need "were".
In option D, the verb "are" is implying that the limit set by 1972 agreement is still valid.
(Well, we may think that "have been" should be more appropriate here. But, we need to pick with best of the lot as the right answer which may not be perfect sentence.)

Kudos [?]: 239 [0], given: 70

Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3373

Kudos [?]: 9275 [0], given: 1168

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

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 10:43
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
_________________

Kudos [?]: 9275 [0], given: 1168

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 11 Dec 2012
Posts: 313

Kudos [?]: 297 [0], given: 66

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

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 11:51
carcass wrote:
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
_________________

Kudos [?]: 297 [0], given: 66

Intern
Joined: 27 Mar 2013
Posts: 2

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 29

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

### Show Tags

27 May 2013, 15:46
Phoenix72 wrote:
D should be the ans.

(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

Awesome way to show the incorrect parts

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 29

Joined: 06 May 2013
Posts: 97

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 24

Location: Malawi
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GMAT 2: 730 Q49 V40
GPA: 3
WE: Consulting (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jun 2013, 12:20
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump into the Great Lake.

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 that 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

Last edited by Zarrolou on 07 Jun 2013, 12:22, edited 1 time in total.
Merging similar topics.

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 24

Manager
Joined: 23 Jan 2012
Posts: 66

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 15

Location: United States
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
Schools: ISB '15 (A)
GMAT 1: 700 Q47 V39
WE: General Management (Hospitality and Tourism)
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jun 2013, 16:22
I think it should be "D", because the agreement is still in effect.
_________________

Kudos are motivating!

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 15

Intern
Joined: 09 Jun 2011
Posts: 3

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 2

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

### Show Tags

17 Jun 2013, 20:39
Alright, let's use a little imagination (only to better understand the original sentence) and a great dose of logic as well, shall we? Let's consider the following sequence of events:

1. 1st January, 1970 - US and Canada enter into an agreement (effective on an immediate basis) that allows municipalities to dump 100 pounds of phosphates into the Great Lakes every year.

2. 1st January, 1972 - US and Canada enter into an agreement (effective on an immediate basis) that reduces the amount of phosphates municipalities are allowed to dump into the Great Lakes every year from 100 pounds to 50 pounds.

3. 1st January, 1974 - US and Canada enter into an agreement (effective on an immediate basis) that prohibits municipalities from dumping (any amount of) phosphates into the Great Lakes.

Let's assume that no actual dumping of phosphates into the Great Lakes has ever happened in the history of mankind. We are only talking about permissions here.

Let's also assume we are in the year 2146, and there's no US, no Canada, there's no Great Lakes, no municipalities, no phosphates and no agreements.

Now, in 2146, to describe what the 1st January 1972 agreement brought into effect, a historian says:

"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."

Can someone tell me what's wrong with the sentence above?

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 2

Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 65

Kudos [?]: 282 [0], given: 8

GPA: 3.95
WE: Supply Chain Management (Other)
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jun 2013, 04:56
I chose A but why does the answer show D??
_________________

Cheers!

+1 Kudos if you like my post!

Kudos [?]: 282 [0], given: 8

Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3373

Kudos [?]: 9275 [0], given: 1168

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

### Show Tags

18 Jun 2013, 07:54
sam15000 wrote:
I chose A but why does the answer show D??

Because the agreement happens I the past but has consequences in the present still today. the wastes are not allowed or allowed in a few quantity.

Moreover, had been is wrong... has no sense in the context

Hope this helps

Nexus 4 with Tapatalk
_________________

Kudos [?]: 9275 [0], given: 1168

Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 286

Kudos [?]: 179 [0], given: 75

Location: India
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V33
WE: Consulting (Telecommunications)
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jun 2013, 07:46
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. How can you reduce the amount of phosphates dumped in past
(B) reduced the phosphate amount that municipalities had been dumping. How can you reduce the amount of phosphates dumped in past
(C) reduces the phosphate amount municipalities have been allowed to dump. A 1972 agreement requires a past tense not present tense -"reduces"
(D) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump
(E) reduces the amount of phosphates allowed for dumping by municipalities A 1972 agreement requires a past tense not present tense -"reduces"
_________________

YOU CAN, IF YOU THINK YOU CAN

Kudos [?]: 179 [0], given: 75

Intern
Joined: 10 Jun 2013
Posts: 7

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 7

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

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2013, 05:04
This is a OG 13 Question... However, the OA given in it is choice D... "are allowed to" :O
_________________

GMAT ATTACKK!!

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 7

Intern
Joined: 15 Mar 2013
Posts: 28

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 13

Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT Date: 08-07-2013
GPA: 3.33
WE: Consulting (Energy and Utilities)
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Aug 2013, 21:25
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

First categorization is between reduces and reduced. Clearly, the agreement in past makes "reduces" incorrect.
Of the remaining options A, B and D - Both A and B imply that the agreement is changing something that "Had been" happening.
For Eg -: Saying that - " From Monday onwards, I reduced the number of daily questions I had been solving." ; this statement would mean that I went back in time and reduced the number of daily questions I solved on Sunday and days before that ( which I can't , technically! )

So I'd rather say - "From Monday onwards, I reduced the number of daily questions I solve" ( since i still solve a reduced number of daily questions, unless specified otherwise)..

Hence, D is the right answer!!!

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 13

Current Student
Joined: 02 Apr 2013
Posts: 65

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 26

Concentration: General Management, Technology
GPA: 3
WE: Science (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Aug 2013, 21:54
Hopefully someone in the near future will be able to explain why its D and not A. Perhaps the context of the sentence? I picked A myself

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 26

Director
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 899

Kudos [?]: 910 [0], given: 322

Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2013, 21:51
1
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.

Reasoning of many in the old posts:

Agreement is still in effect

Yeah the agreement is still in effect;however, the agreement's action is in past "REDUCED".

X REDUCED Y Where X= Agreement and Y = Amount of phosphates

IMHO the "THAT" pronoun is not modifying "PHOSPHATES" , it is modifying the Prepositional Phrase
"Amount of Phosphates".

So X REDUCED the AMOUNT which municipalities WERE ALLOWED to DUMP at the time of agreement.
Hence , I agree the use of PP is unnecessary in this context.

However, I disagree the use of present tense here because after 1972's agreement the AMOUNT has already been
REDUCED WHICH they WERE ALLOWED TO DUMP.

How can 1972's agreement REDUCE the CURRENT AMOUNT when it has already reduced the AMOUNT that was ALLOWED at the time of agreement?????

Truly Tricky sentence it is.

Rgds,
TGC!
_________________

Rgds,
TGC!
_____________________________________________________________________
I Assisted You => KUDOS Please
_____________________________________________________________________________

Kudos [?]: 910 [0], given: 322

Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduce   [#permalink] 28 Aug 2013, 21:51

Go to page   Previous    1  ...  11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22    Next  [ 437 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by