GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

 It is currently 07 Aug 2020, 11:01

### 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 reduced

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 3107
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Apr 2014, 20:32
purnima wrote:
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

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.

Dear Purnima,

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.
_________________
Director
Joined: 19 Apr 2013
Posts: 506
Concentration: Strategy, Healthcare
Schools: Sloan '18 (A)
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V41
GPA: 4
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Mar 2015, 02:11
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:)
SVP
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 1992
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Mar 2015, 02:49
2
Ergenekon wrote:
I think the answer to this question will always be ambiguous to non - native speakers:)

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:).
_________________
Thanks,
Ashish
GMAT-99th Percentile, MBA - ISB Hyderabad
EducationAisle Online GMAT Classes

Sentence Correction Nirvana available on Amazon.in and Flipkart

Join us for a free GMAT Live Online Class from anywhere in the world
Senior Manager
Joined: 20 Aug 2015
Posts: 378
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V44
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 May 2016, 19:52
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.

There are two actions and they are not dependent and hence past perfect tense need not be used and secondly, the two clauses are joined as a subordinate clauses "using that". Check out the question : galileo-did-not-invent-the-telescope-but-on-hearing-in-111155.html. Where the past perfect is used properly.

(A) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump
Because of the above reason, this option is incorrect

(B) reduced the phosphate amount that municipalities had been dumping
There is no need to use Past perfect continuous because the events are not dependent and the event need not be continuous.

(C) reduces the phosphate amount municipalities have been allowed to dump
Simple present is completely wrong as this event occurred in the past

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

(E) reduces the amount of phosphates allowed for dumping by municipalities
Simple present is completely wrong as this event occurred in the past
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 1767
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Feb 2017, 23:47
4
1
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.
_________________

Dmitry Farber | Manhattan Prep GMAT Instructor | San Diego

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile |
Manhattan GMAT Reviews
Intern
Joined: 07 Apr 2013
Posts: 9
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Feb 2017, 00:32
DmitryFarber wrote:
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.

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
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 1767
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Feb 2017, 00:55
2
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!
_________________

Dmitry Farber | Manhattan Prep GMAT Instructor | San Diego

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile |
Manhattan GMAT Reviews
Intern
Joined: 07 Jan 2018
Posts: 10
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Jan 2018, 20:14
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?
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutors
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 3646
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jan 2018, 13:06
MisterD wrote:
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?

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!
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutors @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | YouTube | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: all videos by topic

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
Intern
Joined: 29 Dec 2016
Posts: 26
Location: India
Concentration: Finance
WE: Supply Chain Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Feb 2018, 08:43
1
GMATNinja wrote:
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.

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
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 3107
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Apr 2018, 14:08
1
1
louisbharnabas wrote:

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

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.
_________________
Manager
Joined: 09 May 2017
Posts: 224
Location: Iran (Islamic Republic of)
GMAT 1: 430 Q39 V12

### Show Tags

28 Oct 2018, 08:44
just think about the amount of ........ its a great guidance to understand the meaning of the sentence.
_________________
Manager
Joined: 12 Apr 2011
Posts: 148
Location: United Arab Emirates
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q50 V31
GMAT 2: 720 Q50 V37
WE: Marketing (Telecommunications)
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2019, 00:03
egmat wrote:

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.

Had been troubled with answer choice A for a long long time! (I never checked page 2 before this day for some reason)

But these two lines sum it up perfectly!

"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."

Thank you!
Intern
Joined: 26 Jul 2018
Posts: 47
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jun 2019, 04:42
GMATNinja wrote:
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.

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
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutors
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 3646
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jun 2019, 11:47
krishnabalu wrote:
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

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!
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutors @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | YouTube | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: all videos by topic

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
Intern
Joined: 01 Jul 2019
Posts: 49
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Dec 2019, 14:08
A. Wrong. VERB. “Reduced” doesn’t match “had been”. “Had been” should be “were”. Past tense. Not participle.

D. Correct. Two verbs past then. One verb present = Correct.
E Wrong. MODIFIER. “allowed for dumping by municipalities” Bad description.
Manager
Joined: 16 Jan 2020
Posts: 67
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Feb 2020, 21:30
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.

Meaning: An agreement happened in the past between 2 countries.
This agreement reduced the amount of phosphate allowed to dump

Clause 1: Subject: Agreement Verb: Reduced
Clause 2: Subject: Municipalities Verb: Allowed

(A) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump

"Reduced" verb is fine here but the term "had been" denotes that there are two two past time frames. But they both took simultaneously.
When the agreement was signed, at that moment only municipalities reduced the amount of phosphate. "Had been" also denotes that the action
is not carried into the present. If an agreement has been signed, it should be valid even today.

(B) reduced the phosphate amount that municipalities had been dumping
"Phosphate amount" means the phosphate is the subject here. Where as it was allowed to dump the phosphate but the agreement was made on
the amount of phosphate. "Had been" again states there were two time lines and that the action is not carried in the present.

(C) reduces the phosphate amount municipalities have been allowed to dump
"Reduces" the verb should be in past tense as the agreement took place in 1972. "Have been" usage is wrong here because the discussion is
hapenning in present and still there are laws on dumping the amount of phosphate.

(D) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump
Correct. "Reduced" and "are allowed" is used perfectly in this.

(E) reduces the amount of phosphates allowed for dumping by municipalities
"Reduces" is incorrect past term verb usage. Dumping by is a passive construction.
Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Posts: 420

### Show Tags

14 Feb 2020, 20:34
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?

_________________
Target Test Prep Representative
Status: Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Posts: 779
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Re: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Feb 2020, 21:38
varotkorn wrote:
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?

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.
_________________

# Marty Murray | Chief Curriculum and Content Architect | Marty@TargetTestPrep.com

250 REVIEWS

5-STAR RATED ONLINE GMAT QUANT SELF STUDY COURSE

NOW WITH GMAT VERBAL (BETA)

See why Target Test Prep is the top rated GMAT quant course on GMAT Club. Read Our Reviews

Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Posts: 420

### Show Tags

14 Feb 2020, 21:52
MartyTargetTestPrep wrote:
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
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?
_________________
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced   [#permalink] 14 Feb 2020, 21:52

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 51 posts ]