Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 1612:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
14 Dec 2020, 13:08
Kudos
Bookmarks
AndrewN
Andrew, following up on our discussion from the other post, this problem highlights my issue with the past tense.
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.
I understand from the point of view that this agreement happened in the past and thus the past tense 'reduced' should be used. However, my rationale for why the present tense 'reduces' should be used is that it's an on going reduced amount for how much they are allowed to dump.
Would the following be correct:
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduces the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.
For example:
The 1787 constitution guaranteed representation > No longer allowed representation either because the rule was uplifted or the constitution no longer exists
vs
The 1787 constitution guarantees representation > To this day representation is allowed
Where am I going wrong?
Andrew, following up on our discussion from the other post, this problem highlights my issue with the past tense.
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.
I understand from the point of view that this agreement happened in the past and thus the past tense 'reduced' should be used. However, my rationale for why the present tense 'reduces' should be used is that it's an on going reduced amount for how much they are allowed to dump.
Would the following be correct:
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduces the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.
For example:
The 1787 constitution guaranteed representation > No longer allowed representation either because the rule was uplifted or the constitution no longer exists
vs
The 1787 constitution guarantees representation > To this day representation is allowed
Where am I going wrong?
14 Dec 2020, 14:28
Kudos
Bookmarks
sislam04
Hello again, sislam04. Your understanding is correct, but you seem to be getting caught up in hypotheticals more than the question at hand. I would have no problem with your proposed sentence above, no different from saying that the 1972 case Roe v. Wade affords women the legal right to seek out an abortion for an unwanted pregnancy... but of course, such a sentence as yours does not appear in the answer choices. (What did you select? Do you understand why it was incorrect?) As for the Constitution examples, you would have to consider the entire sentence before you could make a determination as to the correct verb tense. For instance, I could conclude the first sentence with a statement that would extend into the present:
The 1787 Constitution guaranteed representation, an idea that continues to this day.
Consider the whole sentence. Look for contextual clues that logically point to one interpretation or another. And do not be too quick to pass judgment. There might be more than meets the eye at first glance, just as choice (A) in the original question presents a clever trap.
I hope that helps. Thank you for thinking to ask me about this one.
- Andrew
25 Mar 2021, 01:53
Kudos
Bookmarks
GMATNinja
Dear GMATNinja
I had the same query! It seems strange to me that the sentence does not use present perfect (because the reduction began in the past and is continuing into the present) or at least simple present tense for the "reducing". Because from my understanding the agreement still seems to be in place and therefore still reduces the amounts of phosphates. (Especially since the dumping is also in the present tense and therefore it seems reasonable to assume that the phosphate dumping is still an ongoing issue and the treaty is still curtailing the amounts of phosphates that can be dumped)
I like your explanation even though I think it is not quite comparable (at least by the weird logic in my head hahah). The treaty described in the sentence describes some form of limit. If the treaty were to be abandoned there would be no limit and therefore (most likely) no reduction. In other words, the base case is that there is no treaty, therefore only if some kind of agreement is upkept is there any reduction and therefore the agreement continuously reduces the amount of phosphates.
HOWEVER, in your example of an act which ended a war, I believe the base case is that there is no war. In other words, the normal state is that there is no war and only in an exceptional crisis is there a war between two countries. Therefore, the ending of a war is a momentary event which restores the normal state (of peace) and could occur in the past. It does not have to be in present because the base case is that there is no war. Therefore even if there would no peace treaty between two countries there would be no war and therefore the peace agreement does not continuously prevent war. On the contrary only when another war would be declared would another war begin. This seems very different from the case of the curtailment of phosphate pollution because this agreement continuously reduces the phosphate pollution.
Thank you, kudos to you!
