GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 22 Jun 2018, 13:34

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# QOTD: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 5181
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)

### Show Tags

23 Oct 2017, 15:13
35
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

53% (00:44) correct 47% (00:57) wrong based on 846 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 131: Sentence Correction

Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS

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

Every question of the day will be followed by an expert reply by GMATNinja in 12-15 hours. Stay tuned! Post your answers and explanations to earn kudos.

_________________
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1749
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: 340 Q170 V170

### Show Tags

23 Oct 2017, 15:14
6
7
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.

_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

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

Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction 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?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, 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

Intern
Joined: 21 May 2017
Posts: 2
Re: QOTD: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Oct 2017, 19:31
i am thinking D. Can someone please explain?
Senior Manager
Status: Countdown Begins...
Joined: 03 Jul 2016
Posts: 312
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
Schools: IIMB
GMAT 1: 580 Q48 V22
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)

### Show Tags

23 Oct 2017, 21:16
1
Quote:

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

My explanation:

First Split is between reduced and reduces. IMO both are fine as long as the further verbs in the sentence make sense.

(C) reduces the phosphate amount municipalities have been allowed to dump
This is definitely wrong. You need that after phosphate amount to describe that the amount is reduced. Moreover there is SV error. Amount --> Have been.

(E) reduces the amount of phosphates allowed for dumping by municipalities
Way too wordy. Allowed for dumping by municipalities.

(B) reduced the phosphate amount that municipalities had been dumping
This changes the meaning. Original sentence says agreement reduced the amount of phosphates that was ALLOWED. So agreement has reduced the maximum limit, not the actual amount that municipalities had been dumping!

For me its a tough call between A and D. The split is past perfect vs simple present. I would go with D for 2 reasons.

1. The actions [ reducing the amount, municipalities allowed to dump] does not need to be in sequence.
2. Past perfect tense implies that the action happened before but the effect is still present. Whereas in this case, municipalities will still continue to dump the phosphates but in reduced amount.

Intern
Joined: 21 Mar 2017
Posts: 37
Location: Viet Nam
WE: General Management (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: QOTD: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Oct 2017, 00:48
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.

C, E out since event happened in the past.
Eliminate B because actually agreement couldn't reduce the waste that already was dumping

I would go for D instead of A because of the same reason as above.

(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

There has been a discussion here https://gmatclub.com/forum/a-1972-agree ... 9-420.html but I still cannot find any simple explanation.

Waiting for expert's
_________________

+1 kudos if you find my posts helpful

Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2016
Posts: 62
Re: QOTD: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Oct 2017, 00:55
I would go with D.(reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump)
Reduced the amount is correct here because agreement was signed in 1972.
Are allowed is correct because it the controlling the dumping in the present.
Intern
Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Posts: 13
Re: QOTD: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Oct 2017, 01:16
I'll go with A

(A) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump
=> the best
(B) reduced the phosphate amount that municipalities had been dumping
=> I think "that municipalities ..." should refer to "phosphates"
and "had been dumping" is not appropriate tense (the dumping action was happening while they are trying to reduce the phosphates amount"

(C) reduces the phosphate amount municipalities have been allowed to dump
=> reduces: inappropriate tense with time indicator "A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States"
(D) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump
=> are allowed: inappropriate tense with event sequence
(E) reduces the amount of phosphates allowed for dumping by municipalities
=> reduces: inappropriate tense with time indicator "A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States"
Manager
Joined: 14 Sep 2016
Posts: 149
Re: QOTD: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Oct 2017, 02:07
Option A uses past perfect tense, which is not required under the given situation.
Hence, Option D is the correct answer.
Director
Joined: 08 Jun 2015
Posts: 515
Location: India
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V29
GMAT 2: 700 Q48 V38

### Show Tags

24 Oct 2017, 03:28
A tough call between A and D. I fell for A , but here is why I feel D should be the answer :

The point of contention is whether or not past perfect tense is justified in this case. It is not - because the two actions talked about : reduced and allowed are not in sequence here. Municipalities are still being allowed to draw after a reduced amount that was set in 1972. The sequencing is corrected by removing past perfect form. Hence option D.
_________________

" The few , the fearless "

Director
Joined: 08 Jun 2015
Posts: 515
Location: India
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V29
GMAT 2: 700 Q48 V38
Re: QOTD: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Oct 2017, 03:39
_________________

" The few , the fearless "

Intern
Joined: 05 Mar 2017
Posts: 13
Re: QOTD: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Oct 2017, 11:13
1
D wins.

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 - Its more about logical meaning - Municipalities are still dumping phosphates. 'Had been' says prior to 1972 municipalities were dumping reduced amount - that is illogical. If amount was already reduced then why an agreement was held?
(B) reduced the phosphate amount that municipalities had been dumping - allowed is missing, and amount of phosphate is correct
(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
Intern
Joined: 12 Aug 2017
Posts: 11
Location: India
Schools: ISB '18
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V32
GPA: 3
Re: QOTD: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Oct 2017, 18:43
IMO D.

Only D articulates proper tenses.
Here the agreement is in 1972 hence active verb 'reduce' should be in past tense. 'Reduced' is correct.
The use of past perfect continuous is incorrect because 'dumping' continues in the present. hence 'are' is the correct usage
Manager
Status: Aiming MBA!!
Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 141
Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q49 V25
GPA: 3.75
WE: Web Development (Consulting)

### Show Tags

25 Oct 2017, 11:59
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

Its clearly a 3:2 split. As its a 1972 agreement, therefore reduces is not in the correct tense. We need a simple past tense not the simple present tense. Therefore, options C and E are eliminated.

Also, the amount of phosphates is a bit more clearer than phosphate amount. Though its not a deterministic error.

Also, allowed to dump is preferred over allowed for dumping.

(A) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump
If the municipalities had been allowed to dump means they were not dumping anymore during the passage of the agreement than what is the agreement for. The meaning is NON SENSICAL. Incorrect.

(B) reduced the phosphate amount that municipalities had been dumping
If the municipalities had been allowed to dump means they were not dumping anymore during the passage of the agreement than what is the agreement for. The meaning is NON SENSICAL. Incorrect.

(D) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump
Are allowed to dump is a simple present tense in passive form and it is used to state a general fact. This usage is correct. Because the passage of agreement reduced the amount of phosphates which municipalities are generally allowed to dump.
SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1896
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: QOTD: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Nov 2017, 23:55
I am caught off guard that many people choose A.
A changes the meaning b/c "had" indicates that the dumping occurred before the the agreement took place.
Manager
Joined: 31 Jan 2015
Posts: 50
Re: QOTD: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Nov 2017, 06:44
IMO D
correct tense usage
Intern
Joined: 07 Jan 2018
Posts: 14
Re: QOTD: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Jan 2018, 21:14
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?
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 320
Re: QOTD: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jan 2018, 21:19
this is basice but very hard.
past perfect happen before simple past
present perfect happens before simple present
simple past happen before simple present.

this is 3 sequence of tense we need to know.

but to realize the illogic sequence of tenses is another thing. wheneve we see many tenses, ask ourself is this squence logic?
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1749
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: 340 Q170 V170
Re: QOTD: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jan 2018, 14:06
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 Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

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

Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction 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?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, 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

Intern
Joined: 29 Dec 2016
Posts: 30
Location: India
Concentration: Finance
WE: Supply Chain Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: QOTD: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Feb 2018, 09:43
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
Manager
Joined: 11 Jun 2015
Posts: 64
Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q46 V33
Re: QOTD: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Mar 2018, 05:33
n a recently concluded Parliamentary session , the finance minister has decided that the distressed financial companies need a second,larger infusion of government bailout loans to stay afloat .

A) has decided that the distressed financial companies need

B) decided that the distressed financial companies need

C)had decided that the distressed financial companies will need

D)decided that the distressed financial companies has a need for

E)has decided that the distressed financial companies needed

Can anyone help me out with an answer
Re: QOTD: A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States   [#permalink] 31 Mar 2018, 05:33

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 25 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by