A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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!

Ok, makes sense. So, can we conclude safely that while using past perfect tense the entire event or the effect of that event no longer exist?

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
The use of past perfect tense is incorrect in the sentence. Though “ a 1972 agreement” might tempt you to mark A, we have to understand the use of past perfect tense. The past perfect tense is used for the former event when there are two events in the timeline.
The use of “had been allowed” means that this was a former event (not the case now)
Hence the use of past perfect tense is incorrect.

(B) reduced the phosphate amount that municipalities had been dumping
The use of past perfect continuous tense is incorrect. Past perfect continuous tense is used to talk about an action that started in the past, continued for a while (action in progress- ing form), and ENDED in the past. Incorrect.

(C) reduces the phosphate amount municipalities have been allowed to dump
We are talking about a 1972 agreement. We cannot use simple present tense- "reduces" to talk about what was decided in the agreement. Incorrect.

(D) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump
Generally, municipalities are allowed to dump x amount of phosphates into the Great Lakes. But a 1972 agreement reduced that amount.
The agreement between Canada and the US reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.
Correct.

(E) reduces the amount of phosphates allowed for dumping by municipalities
same as C.
allowed for dumping is not idiomatic.

Vishnupriya
GMAT Verbal SME

GMATGuruNY - regarding tenses for option C [have been allowed to dump] and tense for option D [are allowed to dump] specifically

Per my undertanding, both tenses in option C and Option D are BOTH referring to the UPPER LIMIT CURRENTLY ALLOWED just prior to the signing of the 1972 agreement ?

What is wrong with Option C is the "Reduces" and not the have been allowed to dump

Can you confirm if my understanding is accurate

Thank you !

C: A 1972 agreement...reduces the amount
It is not possible for a 1972 agreement -- an agreement in the PAST -- to perform an action in the PRESENT (reduces).
Eliminate C.

C: the amount...that municipalities have been allowed to dump
Here, the present perfect verb have been allowed implies a PAST action that affects the PRESENT.
As a result, the amount allowed TOMORROW might differ from the amount allowed IN THE PAST and TODAY.
Not the intended meaning.
The intention meaning is that the allowed amount remains constant.
To express a GENERAL TRUTH about the allowed amount, we use the SIMPLE PRESENT TENSE, as in the OA:
the amount...that municipalities are allowed to dump
Eliminate C.

Hi GMATGuruNY - followup on C, regarding have been allowed

Is time period of have been allowed from 1972 onwards (agreement sign date) to the June 3rd 2021 only (Today's date specifically) ?

The verb in red implies that the act of allowing began at some point in the past and that this act might -- or might not -- continue in the present.
If the intent were to convey that the act of allowing began in 1972, then the red verb would require some sort of time modifier, perhaps as follows:
the amount that municipalities have been allowed since 1972 to dump

If the sentence had been "A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities *have been* allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.", would this have been correct?

Doesn't it mean that they reduced the amount of phosphates starting from the past(1972) to the present? And please help me identify how 'are' is correct here.

I would forever be grateful to you if you could help out here.

Thank you

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

I chose A because my initial thought was that municipalities were allowed to dump a certain amount prior to 1972 (hence why I OKd the use of 'had been'), and in 1972, this was reduced. Clearly the OA states that this is incorrect, but can someone confirm? How do I make sure that I don't fall into this trap? Because to me it makes perfect sense for something to be allowed at some point, and then a subsequent agreement reducing it.

In other words, the 1972 agreement has reduced the amount that municipalities were previously allowed to dump. Or is this illogical because it implies that the action of dumping, which occurred before 1972, has ended?

Good question, one that gets to the heart of what makes SC so challenging. To see why the use of the past perfect in (A) doesn't make sense, consider two examples, one logical, one not.

By 2016, Tim had been cut by every team in the G-league, some of which he never even attempted to play for.

Here, we have a past action -- Tim getting cut -- occurring before 2016, which is also in the past. Maybe he was cut in 2013 and 2014, etc. This makes sense.

But now look at the following:

In 2014, Tim was cut from the Santa Cruz Warriors, a move that had reduced his playing time.

Because of the use of the past perfect, the action, "had reduced" must have occurred before 2014. But that doesn't make any sense. How could Tim's getting cut in 2014 have reduced his playing time in 2013 or 2012? It couldn't have. Rather, the move would impact his playing time going forward.

Same wonky logic in this example. The agreement happened in 1972. But if it reduced the amount of phosphates towns had been allowed to dump, then we're somehow reducing the amount that was allowed in 1971 or 1970 or earlier. We can't retroactively change what was once allowed! We can only impact the amount allowed going forward from the time of the agreement. So, the use of the past perfect in (A) is incoherent.

I hope that clears things up!

The trick is
A, B the agreement reduced the phosphates dumped in the past, ie reduce the phosphates retrospectively "had been allowed to dump" - not saying it is wrong, but this is the part verbal reasoning comes it - this does not make much sense, agreement doesn't do this generally, it is to regulate things going forward not an action plan to remedy things in the past

C, E = reduces and the dumping tense unmatched; also not 100% logical to think a 1972 agreement only takes effect now "reduces"

Ans = D: may be confusing but in fact reduced = apply to the agreement in the past in 1972; while the effect continues "are allowed" - the countries are still bound by it

Hi GMATNinja

Why can we use amount to describe countable noun?
I thought "amount" is used to describe only uncountable noun?

Could you please kindly help to explain or take other official examples to verify the concept?
Thank you so much!