Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 20:19 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 20:19
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   4   
605-655 Level|   Meaning/Logical Predication|   Verb Tense/Form|                  
avatar
purnima
avatar
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Last visit: 08 Nov 2014
Posts: 15
Own Kudos:
5
Given Kudos: 11
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 15
Kudos: 5
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced 22 Apr 2014, 01:48
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
rahul
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
Show more

Analysis Done :-

1. E option is NG as allowed for is unidiomatic.
2.Options B C are NG as amount of phosphate = phosphate's anount and not phosphate amount.
Now I can not decide between A and D.

I chose A as my understanding of the OS is : Prior to agreement municipalities dumped hence past pefect tense is Ok.

Experts pl help

1.
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,108
Own Kudos:
32,884
 [1]
Given Kudos: 700
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,108
Kudos: 32,884
 [1]
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced 24 Apr 2014, 21:32
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
purnima
rahul
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

Analysis Done :-

1. E option is NG as allowed for is unidiomatic.
2.Options B C are NG as amount of phosphate = phosphate's anount and not phosphate amount.
Now I can not decide between A and D.

I chose A as my understanding of the OS is : Prior to agreement municipalities dumped hence past pefect tense is Ok.

Experts pl help

1.
Show more

Dear Purnima,
Thank you for your query. :)

Meghna has addressed the tense issue with choice A beautifully. Please have a look at her post above. If you still have any doubt, then kindly post your question and analysis keeping in mind the analysis Meghna has provided in her post. We’ll take our discussion forward from there. :)

As regards your analysis of other choices, I feel that you are relying heavily on your understanding of idiom issues in these choices and less on the tense and meaning issues in them. Accordingly, I would like to request you to kindly post a thorough meaning analysis of the original sentence and identify the tense and meaning issues, along with any other issues that the choices may have.

Regards,
Neeti.
User avatar
Ergenekon
User avatar
Joined: 19 Apr 2013
Last visit: 17 Jun 2019
Posts: 475
Own Kudos:
286
Given Kudos: 537
Concentration: Strategy, Healthcare
Schools: Sloan '18 (A)
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V41
GPA: 4
Schools: Sloan '18 (A)
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V41
Posts: 475
Kudos: 286
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced 24 Mar 2015, 03:11
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Thanks EducationAisle. I have read almost all explanations to this question through different sites, and in the end, I decided to remember it as it is. Because I think the answer to this question will always be ambiguous to non - native speakers:)
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
3,579
 [4]
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
 [4]
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced 24 Mar 2015, 03:49
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Ergenekon
I think the answer to this question will always be ambiguous to non - native speakers:)
Show more
Hi Ergenekon, I don't take that for an answer, because I am a non-native speaker too:).

Let's give it another shot, with a fresh example, that you can better associate with.

Prior to 2012, GMAT used to have two essays as part of AWA. In 2012 however, GMAC introduced the IR section, replacing one of the AWA essays. So:

i) Prior to 2012, GMAT had two essays as part of AWA
ii) Since 2012, GMAT has had one essay as part of AWA.

How would we articulate this in a sentence?

A 2012 change in the pattern of GMAT reduced the number of essays that students are asked to attempt as part of the GMAT exam.

Now, why can’t we articulate the sentence as:

A 2012 change in the pattern of GMAT reduced the number of essays that students had been asked to attempt as part of the GMAT exam.

For this, let’s understand the intent of the sentence. Students are asked to attempt what as part of the GMAT exam? Well, students are asked to attempt essays as part of the GMAT exam. So, that (in that students…) is clearly referring to essays (and not to number of essays).

Summarily, students attempted essays even prior to 2012; students attempt essays even now (and hence the construct: students are asked to attempt, because students are asked to attempt essays even now). The only thing that changed/reduced in 2012 was their number. Hence, the sentence:

GMAT reduced the number of essays that students are asked to attempt as part of the GMAT exam.

Let me know if it is now making some sense:).
User avatar
DmitryFarber
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Last visit: 08 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,020
Own Kudos:
8,563
 [5]
Given Kudos: 57
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 745 Q86 V90 DI85
Posts: 3,020
Kudos: 8,563
 [5]
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced 28 Feb 2017, 00:47
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
There's no doubt about the OA: it is definitely D, and there is nothing wrong with this question (which really is an official GMAT question).

People get confused by this one because of the shifts in time. An agreement that took place in the past (described correctly in the past tense) had an effect on what we are now allowed to do (described correctly in the present tense). Similarly, I could say that a movie made in 1950 "changed the way that we see romantic love" or that a change made to the tax code in 1985 "limits the amount of losses one is able to deduct."

A is absolutely wrong. There's no ambiguity about that either. It starts in past tense and shifts to past perfect. This implies that the law worked backwards in time , changing the amount that people had been allowed to dump before the law was passed! Can we all agree that that makes no sense? :) Remember that the past perfect ("had been") is only used to describe events that precede some other past event in the sentence (or--outside the GMAT--elsewhere in the text). Answer choice A has only one past event, so the absurd interpretation I've provided is actually the only possible meaning! That choice has to go.
avatar
mbaprep2017
avatar
Joined: 07 Apr 2013
Last visit: 19 May 2021
Posts: 8
Own Kudos:
2
Given Kudos: 13
Posts: 8
Kudos: 2
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced 28 Feb 2017, 01:32
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
DmitryFarber
There's no doubt about the OA: it is definitely D, and there is nothing wrong with this question (which really is an official GMAT question).

People get confused by this one because of the shifts in time. An agreement that took place in the past (described correctly in the past tense) had an effect on what we are now allowed to do (described correctly in the present tense). Similarly, I could say that a movie made in 1950 "changed the way that we see romantic love" or that a change made to the tax code in 1985 "limits the amount of losses one is able to deduct."

A is absolutely wrong. There's no ambiguity about that either. It starts in past tense and shifts to past perfect. This implies that the law worked backwards in time , changing the amount that people had been allowed to dump before the law was passed! Can we all agree that that makes no sense? :) Remember that the past perfect ("had been") is only used to describe events that precede some other past event in the sentence (or--outside the GMAT--elsewhere in the text). Answer choice A has only one past event, so the absurd interpretation I've provided is actually the only possible meaning! That choice has to go.
Show more


Thanks for the detailed explanation. The action stopped after the agreement was passed. In that case if we mention that it could have continued till present times, which is not the case.

So I am still confused why 'are' is used. Am I missing out some point or any rule :? :?
User avatar
DmitryFarber
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Last visit: 08 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,020
Own Kudos:
8,563
 [2]
Given Kudos: 57
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 745 Q86 V90 DI85
Posts: 3,020
Kudos: 8,563
 [2]
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced 28 Feb 2017, 01:55
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
When you say "the action stopped," are you talking about my discussion of the past perfect in A?

To use the past perfect, we need more than an action that has stopped, or we'd end up using past perfect for all events that have ended. We don't say "I had been born in California" or "Nehru had been the first Prime Minister of India." To use past perfect, we need a sentence that mentions some past event, and we need to be describing something that preceded that past event: "Before the ruling was made, I had been crossing the border every day." "I had studied French for three years when I finally visited France."

As for the present tense in D, maybe it will help to think of it this way. There is an amount that municipalities are allowed to dump. The 1972 agreement reduced that amount, and we are still at that reduced amount. So the amount that municipalities are currently allowed to dump is lower than it used to be. Why? Because the 1972 agreement reduced it.

We could have used "were" instead of "are," but that would restrict the scope to the past, leaving it unclear whether the reduction is still in place, or whether such a limitation even exists anymore! It also would have made this question a lot less tough. ;) However, using the past perfect would be the worst of all. As I said before, since past perfect describes events that precede another past event, this would place the allowance first in our order, meaning that the change affected how much people had already been allowed to dump. In other words, we'd be saying it changed the past!
avatar
MisterD
avatar
Joined: 07 Jan 2018
Last visit: 16 Jun 2019
Posts: 7
Own Kudos:
6
Given Kudos: 65
Posts: 7
Kudos: 6
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced 24 Jan 2018, 21:14
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Great explanation. If a sentence describes a scientific theory in a past tense scenario, does the rule to use the simple present tense work as well?
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,779
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,779
 [2]
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced 26 Jan 2018, 14:06
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
MisterD
Great explanation. If a sentence describes a scientific theory in a past tense scenario, does the rule to use the simple present tense work as well?
Show more
I certainly wouldn't call it an absolute rule, but I think it's completely OK to discuss a scientific theory in the present tense, since the description is a general characteristic of that theory:

    The theory of spontaneous generation states that living organisms develop from nonliving matter.

Seems totally fine, right? We're describing the general characteristics of the theory of spontaneous generation, so present tense is OK. But I'm not sure that it would be WRONG, exactly, to discuss an old theory in the past tense:

    The theory of spontaneous generation stated that living organisms develop from nonliving matter.

I think this is probably fine, too. Why? Well, the theory of spontaneous generation was debunked a long time ago, and you could easily argue that it's more appropriate to discuss that theory in the past tense.

Bottom line: in some situations, the difference between present tense and past tense is mostly just a stylistic choice by the author. In most cases, you'll be able to figure out which tense is correct based on the context of the sentence. But if two different tenses seem defensible, just look for other errors, and don't automatically assume that one of the two (potentially correct) tenses must be wrong.

I hope this helps, and welcome to GMAT Club, MisterD!
avatar
louisbharnabas
avatar
Joined: 29 Dec 2016
Last visit: 09 Mar 2024
Posts: 25
Own Kudos:
13
 [1]
Given Kudos: 177
Location: India
Concentration: Finance
WE:Supply Chain Management (Energy)
Posts: 25
Kudos: 13
 [1]
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced 10 Feb 2018, 09:43
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
This one is a cruel classic that forces you to think really, really carefully about the connection between verb tenses and the intended meaning of the sentence. We covered this one at the end of our webinar on GMAT verb tenses, so head over there if you prefer your explanations in video form.

Quote:
(A) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump
(A) is awfully tempting. The agreement happened in the past (1972), so it’s reasonable enough to use “reduced” here.

But what about the use of past perfect tense (“had been allowed to dump”)? Whenever you see the past perfect tense, it has to describe an action that is completed in the past, but BEFORE some other “time marker” in the past – usually another action in simple past tense. And we do have another action in simple past here: “reduced the amount of phosphates.” Superficially, this looks good.

But those verb tenses don’t actually make sense! Literally, (A) is saying that the 1972 agreement “reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump” – meaning that the 1972 agreement changed the amount that municipalities had been allowed to dump BEFORE the agreement went into place. And that makes no sense: how could a 1972 agreement reach even further into the past to change municipalities' behavior?

It’s subtle. And cruel and difficult. And if you wanted to be conservative on your first pass through the answer choices, you certainly could hang onto (A). But as you’ll see in a moment, we definitely have a better option.

Quote:
(B) reduced the phosphate amount that municipalities had been dumping
(B) is an even worse version of (A). How can the 1972 agreement reach back into the even-more-distant past to change the amount that “municipalities had been dumping”? Plus, there’s no good reason to use the progressive tense here, and the phrase “phosphate amount” strikes me as being awfully weird.

But the logic of the sequence of actions is the real problem, just as it is in (A). So (B) is out, too.

Quote:
(C) reduces the phosphate amount municipalities have been allowed to dump
There are all sorts of little problems with this one. First, I don’t think it’s ideal to say that the 1972 agreement “reduces” the phosphate amount. The agreement reduced that amount when it took effect in the past – so it’s hard to argue that the present tense would work here.

Second, the phrase “phosphate amount” still strikes me as weird. I’m not certain that it’s 100% wrong, and I wouldn’t eliminate (C) solely because of it. But “the amount of phosphates” is clearly better.

Finally, I don’t understand why we would use the present perfect “have been allowed to dump” in this sentence, particularly since it’s accompanied by the present tense “reduces.” “Have been allowed” suggests that the action started in the past and continues in the present. So the sentence is literally saying that municipalities “have been allowed” to dump a certain amount beginning in the past, but only because of a 1972 agreement… which “reduces” that amount only in the present? That doesn’t make sense.

So (C) is out.

Quote:
(D) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump
I know: this one doesn’t sound great. Why are we mixing the past tense with the present tense in this particular case? Superficially, it just doesn’t seem right.

But keep in mind that the simple present tense in English just describes a general characteristic. If we say “Mike surfs like a champion”, that doesn’t necessarily mean that Mike is surfing right now; it just means that he has the general characteristic of surfing like a champion.

So in this case, “the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump” is completely fine: it’s a general statement of how much the municipalities can dump. And back in the past – specifically in 1972 – the agreement reduced that amount to its current levels. So the past tense “reduced” makes sense, and so does the present tense “are allowed.”

It might make us squirm a bit, but we have no reason to eliminate (D).

Quote:
(E) reduces the amount of phosphates allowed for dumping by municipalities
Again, “reduces” doesn’t make a lot of sense here, for the same reasons as we mentioned in answer choice (C). Plus, what the heck is going on with the phrase “allowed for dumping by municipalities”? This is a weird passive construction, and it’s far less clear than “municipalities are allowed to dump.”

So (E) is out, and (D) is the best we can do.
 
Show more

Dear GMATNinja,

I am still confused between A and D.

I had chosen option A because I thought that the municipalities were allowed to dump say "X" amount of phosphates before the agreement, whereas after the agreement, the municipalities are allowed to dump a reduced say "Y" amount of phosphates. (i.e. X > Y) and that the sentence was referring to the "X" amount of phosphates that the municipalities were allowed to dump before the agreement.

Please assist to point out the error in my line of reasoning above.

Regards,
Louis
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,108
Own Kudos:
32,884
 [3]
Given Kudos: 700
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,108
Kudos: 32,884
 [3]
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced 26 Apr 2018, 15:08
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
louisbharnabas


Dear GMATNinja,

I am still confused between A and D.

I had chosen option A because I thought that the municipalities were allowed to dump say "X" amount of phosphates before the agreement, whereas after the agreement, the municipalities are allowed to dump a reduced say "Y" amount of phosphates. (i.e. X > Y) and that the sentence was referring to the "X" amount of phosphates that the municipalities were allowed to dump before the agreement.

Please assist to point out the error in my line of reasoning above.

Regards,
Louis
Show more



Hello Louis/ louisbharnabas,

I am not sure if you still have this doubt. Here is the explanation nonetheless. :-)

Usage of past perfect tense verb denotes an action that is done and over in the distant past. This verb denotes an event that is complete and over.

Going by this logic, the original sentence says that in the past, municipalities had been allowed to dump X amount of phosphates. This means that in the distant past they were allowed to do so. This action used to take place in the past and got over in the past

In 1972, when the agreement came into existence, they were no dumping the X amount of phosphates because they had been allowed to do so in the past. They were not doing so when the agreement came to existence.

So how could the agreement reduce the amount when they were not event dumping the X amount. This is the reason why Choice A is incorrect.

In choice D, use of are allowed is correct because this sentence presents general information. The municipalities are allowed to dump X amount of phosphates which was reduced by the agreement in 1972.

Please note that the sentence will be correct if we replace the simple present tense verb are allowed with simple past tense verb was allowed as this verb tense would present general information in the past.


Hope this helps. :-)
Thanks.
Shraddha
avatar
krishnabalu
avatar
Joined: 26 Jul 2018
Last visit: 05 Oct 2019
Posts: 35
Own Kudos:
13
 [1]
Given Kudos: 66
Posts: 35
Kudos: 13
 [1]
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced 15 Jun 2019, 05:42
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
This one is a cruel classic that forces you to think really, really carefully about the connection between verb tenses and the intended meaning of the sentence. We covered this one at the end of our webinar on GMAT verb tenses, so head over there if you prefer your explanations in video form.

Quote:
(A) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump
(A) is awfully tempting. The agreement happened in the past (1972), so it’s reasonable enough to use “reduced” here.

But what about the use of past perfect tense (“had been allowed to dump”)? Whenever you see the past perfect tense, it has to describe an action that is completed in the past, but BEFORE some other “time marker” in the past – usually another action in simple past tense. And we do have another action in simple past here: “reduced the amount of phosphates.” Superficially, this looks good.

But those verb tenses don’t actually make sense! Literally, (A) is saying that the 1972 agreement “reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump” – meaning that the 1972 agreement changed the amount that municipalities had been allowed to dump BEFORE the agreement went into place. And that makes no sense: how could a 1972 agreement reach even further into the past to change municipalities' behavior?

It’s subtle. And cruel and difficult. And if you wanted to be conservative on your first pass through the answer choices, you certainly could hang onto (A). But as you’ll see in a moment, we definitely have a better option.

Quote:
(B) reduced the phosphate amount that municipalities had been dumping
(B) is an even worse version of (A). How can the 1972 agreement reach back into the even-more-distant past to change the amount that “municipalities had been dumping”? Plus, there’s no good reason to use the progressive tense here, and the phrase “phosphate amount” strikes me as being awfully weird.

But the logic of the sequence of actions is the real problem, just as it is in (A). So (B) is out, too.

Quote:
(C) reduces the phosphate amount municipalities have been allowed to dump
There are all sorts of little problems with this one. First, I don’t think it’s ideal to say that the 1972 agreement “reduces” the phosphate amount. The agreement reduced that amount when it took effect in the past – so it’s hard to argue that the present tense would work here.

Second, the phrase “phosphate amount” still strikes me as weird. I’m not certain that it’s 100% wrong, and I wouldn’t eliminate (C) solely because of it. But “the amount of phosphates” is clearly better.

Finally, I don’t understand why we would use the present perfect “have been allowed to dump” in this sentence, particularly since it’s accompanied by the present tense “reduces.” “Have been allowed” suggests that the action started in the past and continues in the present. So the sentence is literally saying that municipalities “have been allowed” to dump a certain amount beginning in the past, but only because of a 1972 agreement… which “reduces” that amount only in the present? That doesn’t make sense.

So (C) is out.

Quote:
(D) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump
I know: this one doesn’t sound great. Why are we mixing the past tense with the present tense in this particular case? Superficially, it just doesn’t seem right.

But keep in mind that the simple present tense in English just describes a general characteristic. If we say “Mike surfs like a champion”, that doesn’t necessarily mean that Mike is surfing right now; it just means that he has the general characteristic of surfing like a champion.

So in this case, “the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump” is completely fine: it’s a general statement of how much the municipalities can dump. And back in the past – specifically in 1972 – the agreement reduced that amount to its current levels. So the past tense “reduced” makes sense, and so does the present tense “are allowed.”

It might make us squirm a bit, but we have no reason to eliminate (D).

Quote:
(E) reduces the amount of phosphates allowed for dumping by municipalities
Again, “reduces” doesn’t make a lot of sense here, for the same reasons as we mentioned in answer choice (C). Plus, what the heck is going on with the phrase “allowed for dumping by municipalities”? This is a weird passive construction, and it’s far less clear than “municipalities are allowed to dump.”

So (E) is out, and (D) is the best we can do.
 
Show more
Hi GMATNinja,

If we are using a simple past here, i.e. "A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates" doesn't it mean that the agreement is no longer true/valid now? On the same logic, as the agreement is a fact or still applicable today, isn't simple present reduces a better choice
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,779
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,779
 [1]
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced 27 Jun 2019, 12:47
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
krishnabalu
Hi GMATNinja,

If we are using a simple past here, i.e. "A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates" doesn't it mean that the agreement is no longer true/valid now? On the same logic, as the agreement is a fact or still applicable today, isn't simple present reduces a better choice
Show more
To be honest, I think this is a little bit of a grey area, but I think that the past tense is completely fine here.

Why? Well, the act of reducing the legal amount of phosphates was completed in the past when the agreement was made. Here, have another example:

    "The treaty ended the war 10 years ago." - Does the use of simple past imply that the treaty is no longer valid? No. But it would be weird to say that a treaty signed in the past ends the war.

To be fair, I don't think that it would be WRONG to use present tense in the original question. Present tense in English indicates a general characteristic, so it wouldn't be crazy to say that "A 1972 agreement reduces the amount of phosphates..." But it's a bit clearer and better to say that the 1972 agreement reduced the legal limits in the past, when the agreement was signed.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
kornn
User avatar
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Last visit: 18 Dec 2021
Posts: 357
Own Kudos:
93
Given Kudos: 832
Posts: 357
Kudos: 93
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced 14 Feb 2020, 21:34
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Dear IanStewart AjiteshArun AnthonyRitz GMATGuruNY MartyTargetTestPrep VeritasPrepBrian,

Going through this forum, I'm still not clear why choice A. is wrong.

Choice A. : 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.

When we say: reduced FROM X (pre-1972) TO Y (1972 onwards), this is correct, right?

So, I think choice A. means reduced X, which I think is fine.

On the other hand, according to choice D., if we say reduced Y, would it mean reduced FROM Y TO Z?

I'm very confused here. Please help.
User avatar
MartyTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Last visit: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 3,476
Own Kudos:
5,579
Given Kudos: 1,430
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 3,476
Kudos: 5,579
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced 14 Feb 2020, 22:38
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
varotkorn
Going through this forum, I'm still not clear why choice A. is wrong.

Choice A. : 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.

When we say: reduced FROM X (pre-1972) TO Y (1972 onwards), this is correct, right?

So, I think choice A. means reduced X, which I think is fine.

On the other hand, according to choice D., if we say reduced Y, would it mean reduced FROM Y TO Z?

I'm very confused here. Please help.
Show more
The use of tenses in choice (A) results in the version's conveying a meaning that is logically impossible.

The use of the past perfect "had been allowed" and the simple past "reduced" indicates that "had been allowed to dump" occurred BEFORE "reduced the amount of phosphates."

So, the version created via the use of (A) conveys the impossible to be true meaning that the agreement reduced the amount of phosphates that had ALREADY been dumped.

The use in (D) of the present tense "are allowed" rather than the past perfect "had been allowed" solves this problem.
User avatar
kornn
User avatar
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Last visit: 18 Dec 2021
Posts: 357
Own Kudos:
93
 [1]
Given Kudos: 832
Posts: 357
Kudos: 93
 [1]
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced 14 Feb 2020, 22:52
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
MartyTargetTestPrep

The use of tenses in choice (A) results in the version's conveying a meaning that is logically impossible.

The use of the past perfect "had been allowed" and the simple past "reduced" indicates that "had been allowed to dump" occurred BEFORE "reduced the amount of phosphates."

So, the version created via the use of (A) conveys the impossible to be true meaning that the agreement reduced the amount of phosphates that had ALREADY been dumped.
Show more
Dear MartyTargetTestPrep
Thank you for your response.
Choice A. : 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.

However, the reason why I think choice A. is logical is that the timeline is as follows:
The amount that they had been allowed to dump (X) -> reduced -> The amount Y (any amount less than X)

Why is the above timeline illogical?
User avatar
MartyTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Last visit: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 3,476
Own Kudos:
5,579
Given Kudos: 1,430
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 3,476
Kudos: 5,579
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced 14 Feb 2020, 23:40
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
varotkorn
MartyTargetTestPrep

The use of tenses in choice (A) results in the version's conveying a meaning that is logically impossible.

The use of the past perfect "had been allowed" and the simple past "reduced" indicates that "had been allowed to dump" occurred BEFORE "reduced the amount of phosphates."

So, the version created via the use of (A) conveys the impossible to be true meaning that the agreement reduced the amount of phosphates that had ALREADY been dumped.
Dear MartyTargetTestPrep
Thank you for your response.
Choice A. : 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.

However, the reason why I think choice A. is logical is that the timeline is as follows:
The amount that they had been allowed to dump (X) -> reduced -> The amount Y (any amount less than X)

Why is the above timeline illogical?
Show more
You are missing the fact that you cannot reduce an amount that has already been dumped.

Consider the problem with the following statement:

    The countries reduced the amount of phosphates that was dumped during the previous year.

You can't reduce how much was dumped during the previous year. It has already been dumped.

Even though the following statement does not include "during the previous year," what it describes is also impossible.

    The countries reduced the amount of phosphates that had been dumped.
User avatar
IanStewart
User avatar
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 4,145
Own Kudos:
10,984
 [2]
Given Kudos: 99
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,145
Kudos: 10,984
 [2]
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced 15 Feb 2020, 06:27
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
varotkorn

Going through this forum, I'm still not clear why choice A. is wrong.

Choice A. : 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.
Show more

I think you asked about a similar question yesterday. Changing the verb tense at the end changes the meaning of the sentence. Compare these two simpler sentences (which are not perfectly written, but illustrate the point) :

"A 1995 law imposed additional fines on companies that had been polluting"

"A 1995 law imposed additional fines on companies that are polluting"

These have different meanings. The first, using "had been", says that companies that polluted before 1995 were subject to additional penalties. So that sentence describes a retroactive penalty applied to companies for the pollution they caused before the law was passed (even if those companies no longer pollute). The second sentence means something different. It says that new fines were added (to whatever fines existed before) to punish companies that pollute from 1995 onwards.

The second sentence isn't well-written, but I wanted to match the verb tenses in the original as closely as possible.
User avatar
lindseym
User avatar
Joined: 02 Feb 2020
Last visit: 16 Apr 2023
Posts: 13
Own Kudos:
3
Given Kudos: 34
Location: Korea, Republic of
Schools: HBS '25 (I) Wharton '25 (II) Booth '25 (II)
GMAT 1: 740 Q51 V38
Schools: HBS '25 (I) Wharton '25 (II) Booth '25 (II)
GMAT 1: 740 Q51 V38
Posts: 13
Kudos: 3
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced 29 Nov 2020, 01:00
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi, I'm not a native speaker, and now i'm trying to figure out a subtle difference between the meanings below.

(A) there were municipalities being allowed to dump phosphates into the Great Lakes before 1972.
After then, 1972 agreement appeared and the municipalities were no longer allowed to dump those into the Lake.
That is, Municipalities had been allowed before 1972 agreement made.
=> This is what I thought in the first place, and that is why I chose (A)

(B) The 1972 agreement set the amount of phosphates, and the phosphates referred to the amount that municipalities are allowed to dump.
=> This turned out to be the exact meaning of the question.

Any clue for me that I could figure out the meaning as (B) in the first place?
Help me pls native speakers! :)
User avatar
DmitryFarber
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Last visit: 08 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,020
Own Kudos:
8,563
 [1]
Given Kudos: 57
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 745 Q86 V90 DI85
Posts: 3,020
Kudos: 8,563
 [1]
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced 29 Nov 2020, 12:45
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
lindseym
The trick here is that a 1972 agreement could never change what had been allowed, because "had been" always refers to something that precedes our past tense action. We can say that a law changed what was allowed (at that time) or what is allowed, if the law is the same today. But it could never change what had been allowed before it was passed.
   1   2   3   4   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts