A 2013 agreement among North American governments reduced the quantity

A 2013 agreement among North American governments reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers had been allowed to sell at below-market prices in the United States.

(A) reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers had been allowed to sell - we need to be careful here. This past perfect makes sentence look meaningless because if the agreement took place later than sellers had already been selling some quantity, then how the agreement can reduce the quantity that was ALREADY sold. Thus, out
(B) reduces the quantity of tomatoes allowed for sale by Mexican producers - 'reduces' is wrong because the agreement took place back in 2013, thus we need past tense and not simple present. Out
(C) reduced the tomato quantities that Mexican producers had been selling - Same as A for past perfect. Out
(D) reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers are allowed to sell - both tenses are correct: one is 'reduced' because agreement took place in 2013 and 'they are still allowed to sell, thus present continuous. Correct
(E) reduces the tomato quantities Mexican producers have been allowed to sell - 'reduces' is wrong as described in B

My answer is D

A 2013 agreement among North American governments reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers had been allowed to sell at below-market prices in the United States.

(A) reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers had been allowed to sell
Past perfect should be used for the earlier event. Here the Mexican producers allowed to sell their products is the later event. Hence past perfect is incorrect.

(B) reduces the quantity of tomatoes allowed for sale by Mexican producers
The agreement was made in 2013. So past tense is required - reduced.

(C) reduced the tomato quantities that Mexican producers had been selling
Same issue as A.

(D) reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers are allowed to sell
Correct. Present tense makes sense as the event is still continuing in the present.

(E) reduces the tomato quantities Mexican producers have been allowed to sell
The agreement was made in 2013. So past tense is required - reduced.

Option D.

Posted from my mobile device

Agreement was made in 2013 so 'reduced' is the right verb.
Further 'quantity of tomatoes' is the right usage than 'tomato quantities' which is wordy.
Also 'are allowed' is the correct usage.

Correct option D.

A 2013 agreement among North American governments reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers had been allowed to sell at below-market prices in the United States.

(A) reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers had been allowed to sell - Incorrect had been is not correct tense.
(B) reduces the quantity of tomatoes allowed for sale by Mexican producers - Incorrect reduces is not correct tense.
(C) reduced the tomato quantities that Mexican producers had been selling - Incorrect selling is not correct
(D) reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers are allowed to sell - Correct. Correct use of tense.
(E) reduces the tomato quantities Mexican producers have been allowed to sell - Incorrect have been is not correct tense.

D

Clearly a meaning based question.

"reduces" is ofcourse incorrect. The best contenders are A and D.

Now, since the agreement has been passed and assuming it is still enforced, the effect of the agreement should still exist. Therefore, "had been" is incorrect, and simple present "are" is better.

Let’s begin from the correct answer. Understanding why D is correct greatly helped me understand why the others are incorrect.

D. A 2013 agreement among North American governments reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers are allowed to sell at below-market prices in the United States.

Reduced is correct for an action that happened in 2013. Are is correct for an agreement that is still in effect. The agreement reduced the quantity in 2013, and this agreement still identifies the quantity. That’s the exact meaning the sentence conveys.

A. A 2013 agreement among North American governments reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers had been allowed to sell at below-market prices in the United States.

If I say – When I came to the park I noticed that a young lady had smiled at me, then something must be wrong with me. Otherwise how to explain that I noticed something that happened even before I came to the park. That’s nonsense. Similarly, if we say that:

A 2013 agreement reduced the quantity that Mexican producers had been allowed

Then we mean that a 2013 agreement reduced something that happened before 2013. These two actions are in different timeframes. For example, when I say I want to stop World War II, then anyone understands that it is illogical because I am too too late to do that.

B. A 2013 agreement among North American governments reduces the quantity of tomatoes allowed for sale by Mexican producers at below-market prices in the United States.

A 2013 agreement reduces... I tend to think that reduced would match here better because the agreement reduced the quantity when it came into force in 2013. Additionally, ...allowed for sale by Mexican producers... changes the meaning of the original sentence because Mexican producers didn’t allow, but instead they were allowed by whoever.

C. A 2013 agreement among North American governments reduced the tomato quantities that Mexican producers had been selling at below-market prices in the United States.

We usually don’t say tomato quantities, but say the quantity of tomatoes. ...Mexican producers had been selling... again leads to illogical timeframe mismatch.

E. A 2013 agreement among North American governments reduces the tomato quantities Mexican producers have been allowed to sell at below-market prices in the United States.

A 2013 agreement reduces... the same problem as in B is repeated. ...the tomato quantities... the same problem as in C is repeated. ...Mexican producers have been allowed... we are talking about a general rule which is still in effect, thus we need Present Simple.

Hence D
_________________

IMO-D

A 2013 agreement among North American governments reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers had been allowed to sell at below-market prices in the United States.

Per the sentence, the agreement reduced the quantity that Mexico producers had been allowed to sell. Now in this sentence, the verb tense - past perfect tense - had been allowed - is incorrect because it non-sensically implies that Mexico producers were allowed to sell a certain amount sometime in the past - (they are no longer allowed to sell now, since the action is already completed) and then the next event in the past happened - the agreement reduced this amount. It is not possible to reduce an amount for something that has already happened (had been allowed).

(A) reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers had been allowed to sell---Incorrect---{In the sense that you cannot go back in time and change how much was allowed. you can only change how much was allowed from that point forward}..
(B) reduces the quantity of tomatoes allowed for sale by Mexican producers --Incorrect----Tense Error
(C) reduced the tomato quantities that Mexican producers had been selling ---Incorrect---that modifies Quantity--Meaning prb also as allowed is no longer part of the sentence.
(D) reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers are allowed to sell ---Correct---Agreement changes the quantity that producer will sell psot agreement. Since Agreement in past , the next action is in present (logical sequence).
(E) reduces the tomato quantities Mexican producers have been allowed to sell ----Incorrect----Tense Error

(A) reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers had been allowed to sell
use of past perfect is wrong here how can the agreement reduce something which already has taken place

(B) reduces the quantity of tomatoes allowed for sale by Mexican producers
since the sentence is talking about past use of present tense is illogical........also allowed to is the correct idiom

(C) reduced the tomato quantities that Mexican producers had been selling
again the use of past perfect is wrong here (same as A )

(D) reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers are allowed to sell
this is the correct answer this clearly conveys the meaning that Mexican producers are allowed to sell some quantity and the agreement reduced that quantity

(E) reduces the tomato quantities Mexican producers have been allowed to sell
sentence is talking about the past so use of present tense is illogical

A 2013 agreement among North American governments reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers had been allowed to sell at below-market prices in the United States.

(A) reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers had been allowed to sell - Usage of verb had been is not correct, this seems like the 2013 agreement went back in the past and reduced the tomatoes that the Mexican were selling in the past.
(B) reduces the quantity of tomatoes allowed for sale by Mexican producers - A 2013 agreement that happened in the year 2013 reduces? Allowed for sale is also a problem . An object might not be allowed for sale, how can some quantity not be allowed for sale? Not correct
(C) reduced the tomato quantities that Mexican producers had been selling - two problems - tomato quantities that, that is referring to quantities and so it seems like Mexican producers are selling quantities. Also had been selling is not correct. It seems like the agreement went and reduced the quantity while they were selling the tomatoes in the past.
(D) reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers are allowed to sell - This is correct.
(E) reduces the tomato quantities Mexican producers have been allowed to sell - reduces is not correct and even if you ignore tomato quantities, have been allowed to sell makes it seem like they are now no longer allowed to sell tomatoes at all.

IMO D is the answer.
_________________

A 2013 agreement among North American governments reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers had been allowed to sell at below-market prices in the United States.

2013 indicates that the event is in past. So present tense will be incorrect.

(A) reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers had been allowed to sell
use of had is incorrect as two relevant things has not happened in sequence.
earlier more qty they used to sell and now less quantity.
incorrect

(B) reduces the quantity of tomatoes allowed for sale by Mexican producers
incorrect

(C) reduced the tomato quantities that Mexican producers had been selling
use of had is incorrect as two relevant things has not happened in sequence.
earlier more qty they used to sell and now less quantity.
incorrect

(D) reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers are allowed to sell
Correct

(E) reduces the tomato quantities Mexican producers have been allowed to sell
incorrect

The answer is clearly D.





Based on above reasoning pt.1, this is wrong.


Based on above reasoning pt.2, this is wrong.


Based on above reasoning pt.1, this is wrong.


ARE ALLOWED IS correct and also reduced is correct as per reasoning above in Pt 2.


Based on above reasoning pt.2, this is wrong.

A 2013 agreement among North American governments reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers had been allowed to sell at below-market prices in the United States.

Meaning:

1. There is an 2013 agreement among North American governments
2. This agreement reduced the quantity of tomatoes
3. Tomatoes that producers are/were allowed to sell at below-market prices in the United States

Errors:

Intended meaning of the sentence is pretty forward, this questions tests the usage of verb tenses:

Present simple:
is used to present habit, general facts, repeated actions, fixed arrangements, scheduled events (e.g. timetable), sequence of actions in the present (first – then, after that), instructions, and so on

Past simple:
is used to show completed action took place at a specific time in the past.

Past perfect:
is used to talk about something that happened before another action in the past, which is usually expressed by the past simple.



Prior action for 'had been allowed' is 'reduced prices' but this events actually don't connected directly, this is not the best option so let's see other answer choices.

POE:

Split between 'reduced' and 'reduces'. This action is not a general facts or habit, rather completed action, so usage of past simple is more clear here.
So we can eliminate (B) and (E)

(B) reduces the quantity of tomatoes allowed for sale by Mexican producers
(E) reduces the tomato quantities Mexican producers have been allowed to selll

(C) reduced the tomato quantities that Mexican producers had been selling
('that' has to modify 'tomato' not 'quantities', also 'had been selling here is incorrect)

Between (A) and (D) the main difference is verb tense:
(D) had more clear meaning that (A), so I'd prefer D over A.
'are allowed' - as a general information about an 2013 agreement.

(A) reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers had been allowed to sell
(D) reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers are allowed to sell


D is the answerr

_________________

A 2013 agreement among North American governments reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers had been allowed to sell at below-market prices in the United States.

(A) reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers had been allowed to sell
(B) reduces the quantity of tomatoes allowed for sale by Mexican producers
(C) reduced the tomato quantities that Mexican producers had been selling
(D) reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers are allowed to sell
(E) reduces the tomato quantities Mexican producers have been allowed to sell

By carefully seeing the options, we can say at first that we have to choose between "reduced" and "reduces". As this is the agreement, which happened in the past it should be reduced rather than reduces, which means the agreement still reduces.

So options B and E can be ELIMINATED.

Among A, C, and D:

In C, "reduced the tomato quantities" is changing the meaning of the sentence. The intended meaning is "the agreement reduced the quantity of tomatoes". So this choice can be ELIMINATED.

Between A and D:

It is now the difference between "had been" and "are". We can ELIMINATE option A based on two flaws. First, it says "had been" for producers (plural) and second, the change in the meaning. The producers are allowed to sell below market prices for a lifetime unless there is any change in the agreement. So 'had been" says that producers are allowed to sell in the past for a particular duration of time and it is no more applicable now. This completely distorts the meaning and option A can be comfortably ELIMINATED.

Option D is the best choice. It clearly says "producers are allowed to sell" and this perfectly conveys the intended meaning.

OPTION: D

Intended meaning:
Until 2013, the Mexicans were allowed to sell some quantities of tomatoes below-market prices in the US markets. However, a 1972 agreement among North American governments reduced this amount.

(A) reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers had been allowed to sell
The verb tense had been allowed implies that the producers were allowed to sell sometime in the past and this action is now completed. Thus, they are no longer allowed.
Now, the later event (2013 agreement) reduced this amount. So, we are trying to reduce some action that is already completed. This is illogical.

(B) reduces the quantity of tomatoes allowed for sale by Mexican producers
“reduces” is present tense. Is the wrong usage of verb tense in this case.

(C) reduced the tomato quantities that Mexican producers had been selling
“reduced the quantity of tomatoes” is preferred over “reduced the tomato quantities”.

(D) reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers are allowed to sell
Conveys the intended meaning. The “are” indicates that the producers are still doing the action and hence the agreement is passed.

(E) reduces the tomato quantities Mexican producers have been allowed to sell
“reduces” is a wrong usage of verb tense in this case.

Answer D

A 2013 agreement among North American governments reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers had been allowed to sell at below-market prices in the United States.

(A) reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers had been allowed to sell --> Verb Error. Incorrect use of past perfect tense. Need 2 related non concurrent events.
(B) reduces the quantity of tomatoes allowed for sale by Mexican producers --> Verb Error. 'Reduces' the activity of reducing is still continuing.
(C) reduced the tomato quantities that Mexican producers had been selling --> Verb error. 'had been selling' is incorrect. Indicates they do not sell now.
(D) reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers are allowed to sell --> Correct. Verb errors are all corrected in this.
(E) reduces the tomato quantities Mexican producers have been allowed to sell --> Verb Error. 'Reduces' the activity of reducing is still continuing.

very difficult question in which one must be careful about meaning and tenses. A word of cautious before we jump in, the quantity was reduced, not completely banned. Also, the agreement was signed in 2013, so we need 'reduced'. This eliminates B and E. A and C can be eliminated based on past perfect. We use past perfect when we want to indicate one action happened before the next one. So, they reduced the quantity of tomato that was sold in the past. But this does not make any logical sense. We are left only with D, which uses 'reduced' in past and 'are allowed' in present because they still can sell certain quantity of tomatos.

A 2013 agreement among North American governments reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers had been allowed to sell at below-market prices in the United States.


(A) reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers had been allowed to sell Tense error
(B) reduces the quantity of tomatoes allowed for sale by Mexican producers Tense error
(C) reduced the tomato quantities that Mexican producers had been selling Tense error
(D) reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers are allowed to sell CORRECT
(E) reduces the tomato quantities Mexican producers have been allowed to sell Tense error

EGMAT
A 2013 agreement among North American governments reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers had been allowed to sell at below-market prices in the United States.

(A) reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers had been allowed to sell
(B) reduces the quantity of tomatoes allowed for sale by Mexican producers
(C) reduced the tomato quantities that Mexican producers had been selling
(D) reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers are allowed to sell
(E) reduces the tomato quantities Mexican producers have been allowed to sell

I still don't understand why option A is incorrect just because of time period mismatch
For option A: reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers had been allowed to sell
The agreement was passed in 2013 and say the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers were allowed to sell was set in 2011, and that particular limit had been going on without any change. Thus, the agreement in 2013 reduced the limit that was set in 2011.
This way option A stands valid.

Option D: reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers are allowed to sell
seems incorrect, since we are saying 'the agreement reduced the...', this means the event took place in the past. Now, saying the 'producers are allowed to sell', would mean there are 2 different tenses, reduction happened in the past and the quantity of tomatoes allowed to sell is in the present.
This leads to the same issue as in option A

I suppose the following would have been a better option among all
reduced the quantity of tomatoes that Mexican producers were allowed to sell
As the tense is maintained for both the events.

Please let me know about my analysis

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________