Here I have one query if I take it as the Canada and united States reduced amount of phosphates that municipalities were using, then whats the issue?

So "agreement... reduced... of phosphates" in simple past and "that municipalities.. into the Great lakes", in past perfect as the amount used prior to agreement.

I find this question extremely annoying.

I teach GMAT and English and have some experience with sentence correction and the past perfect. I understand the point about tenses that is being made. However, it seems to me that this point is open to interpretation.

At the moment in time when the amount was reduced, what was the amount? One could say that it wasn't the original amount, because the amount was reduced instantaneously. One could also say that it wasn't the new amount, because then the new amount would have been reduced. So, we could argue this until hell freezes over.

To my ear, the past perfect in this situation is acceptable. The reduction occurs simultaneously with the new amount. The past perfect refers to the amount that had been allowed previously.

The best option, in my opinion, would be to use the simple past, but this isn't one of the choices. This mumble in the book about the past tense meaning that the treaty would no longer be valid -- one could argue that point as well.

The problem with the present tense in the correct answer is that the "intended meaning" is changed. Nothing in the original sentence refers to the present.

beagle wrote:I find this question extremely annoying.

I teach GMAT and English and have some experience with sentence correction and the past perfect. I understand the point about tenses that is being made. However, it seems to me that this point is open to interpretation.

At the moment in time when the amount was reduced, what was the amount? One could say that it wasn't the original amount, because the amount was reduced instantaneously. One could also say that it wasn't the new amount, because then the new amount would have been reduced. So, we could argue this until hell freezes over.

To my ear, the past perfect in this situation is acceptable. The reduction occurs simultaneously with the new amount. The past perfect refers to the amount that had been allowed previously.

The best option, in my opinion, would be to use the simple past, but this isn't one of the choices. This mumble in the book about the past tense meaning that the treaty would no longer be valid -- one could argue that point as well.

The problem with the present tense in the correct answer is that the "intended meaning" is changed. Nothing in the original sentence refers to the present.

Welcome to the forum!

I find this question extremely annoying.

This is a problem from official source (N 77, OG13) and that means we should accept it as it is. Some other problem with similar issues might appear on the test.

Some problems are, indeed, annoying. Personally, I don't like the problem about starfish (N 114, OG13). I understand why the correct answer there is correct, but expressions like "with anywhere from five to eight arms" or "with the animal sometimes overcompensating" throw me out of balance.

To my ear, the past perfect in this situation is acceptable. The reduction occurs simultaneously with the new amount. The past perfect refers to the amount that had been allowed previously.

I get your point.
The GMAT English and the real world English are different. The GMAT tends to take things more literary when it comes to Past Perfect.
It may well be that in the real world option A will pass along just fine, but on the GMAT we should ask a question: is it possible to reduce in 1972 the amount that had existed/had been allowed before that time? Taking things literary helps.

By the way, when it comes to Present Simple, asking the same kind of question won't help. Present Simple is more common tense, so it is allowed more freedom.
They reduced the amount allowed at that time (and would be allowed in the future), but this agreement still holds, so we can use Present Simple.

The problem with the present tense in the correct answer is that the "intended meaning" is changed. Nothing in the original sentence refers to the present.

You are right, the meaning is changed. And this is not the only question where the meaning gets unjustifiably changed.
Check the problem "A patient accusing a doctor of malpractice" (OG VR2, N 54).

Some people (myself included) believe that "change of meaning" is the last thing on which we can rely in the process of elimination. I would resort to it only if I didn't have any other considerations.

content of a book must be in present tense. this case is textbook case in all grammar classes

that book writen in 1972 mentions the famous love between them

agreement is similar to the content of the book

agreement in 1972 reduces the amount which...

the correct verb must be "reduces" not "reduced"

this is wrong questions.

though we see that og questions are very nice and simbolize for formal writen American English, we have to admit that no one has no mistake.

take this question to the grammarian or teacher of grammar, I think they will agree with me

To my ear, the past perfect in this situation is acceptable. The reduction occurs simultaneously with the new amount. The past perfect refers to the amount that had been allowed previously.

I get your point.
The GMAT English and the real world English are different. The GMAT tends to take things more literary when it comes to Past Perfect.
It may well be that in the real world option A will pass along just fine, but on the GMAT we should ask a question: is it possible to reduce in 1972 the amount that had existed/had been allowed before that time? Taking things literary helps.

Yes, it is possible.
On Monday, there was 1 liter of milk in my fridge.
On Tuesday, I reduced this amount (1 liter) by drinking half the bottle.
So, on Tuesday, I reduced the amount of milk that had been in my refrigerator. Perfectly fine. There are two events in the past: the reduction of milk and the milk being in the fridge. You could say that the milk being in the fridge comes *before* the reduction, so the past perfect is acceptable. Makes sense to my ear, and it makes sense logically.

Anyway, I understand we should go with the official answer, since the point is to get as many problems correct as possible. I still find this annoying though :/

The problem with the present tense in the correct answer is that the "intended meaning" is changed. Nothing in the original sentence refers to the present.

You are right, the meaning is changed. And this is not the only question where the meaning gets unjustifiably changed.
Check the problem "A patient accusing a doctor of malpractice" (OG VR2, N 54).

I checked it out, and the official answer seems fine. I don't see a big difference in meaning between "there is a lack of another doctor to testify" and "without another doctor's testimony." With this problem, however, our answer choice means that the treaty still holds today. That completely (and I do mean completely) changes the meaning.

To my ear, the past perfect in this situation is acceptable. The reduction occurs simultaneously with the new amount. The past perfect refers to the amount that had been allowed previously.

I get your point.
The GMAT English and the real world English are different. The GMAT tends to take things more literary when it comes to Past Perfect.
It may well be that in the real world option A will pass along just fine, but on the GMAT we should ask a question: is it possible to reduce in 1972 the amount that had existed/had been allowed before that time? Taking things literary helps.

I suppose GMAT thinks that in order to change the amount that had been allowed, we would have to build a time machine or something?

I would still argue that this isn't the only logical interpretation -- and the official answer is a disaster. It might have been more plausible in, say, 1973 than in 2014. Perhaps that's the problem.

GMATGuruNY wrote: Quickest approach:

In C and E, reduces should be in the past tense because the agreement was made in 1972. Eliminate C and E.

In A and B, the past perfect tense of had been makes no sense. The past perfect implies an action completed before another past action. How could the 1972 agreement have reduced an action that had already been completed?

The correct answer is D.

GMATGuruNY wrote:The purpose of the agreement was to reduce not the amount that HAD BEEN ALLOWED but the amount that WOULD BE allowed moving forward.
The present tense ARE implies that the agreement is STILL IN EFFECT:

A 1972 agreement....reduced the amount...that municipalities ARE allowed to dump...

GMATGuruNY wrote:The past perfect (had + VERB) implies an action COMPLETED BEFORE ANOTHER PAST EVENT.
In other words, an action that STOPPED HAPPENING at some point in the past.
Thus, the amount that HAD BEEN ALLOWED implies an amount that NO LONGER WAS ALLOWED at the time of the 1972 agreement.
This meaning makes no sense: if the amount no longer was allowed, how could the agreement reduce it?

Hi GMATGuruNY - Great explanations!

Just a quick clarification - in this context, A 1972 agreement....reduced the amount...that municipalities WERE allowed to dump.. could also be right, I guess.

Correct me please if wrong!

@ GMATGuruNY - could you please provide a quick clarification on my above concern ?

Much thanks in advance.

RBBmba@2014 wrote:
Hi GMATGuruNY - Great explanations!

Just a quick clarification - in this context, A 1972 agreement....reduced the amount...that municipalities WERE allowed to dump.. could also be right, I guess.

Correct me please if wrong!

Correct: A 1972 agreement reduced the amount that municipalities WERE allowed to dump.
Here, the sentence refers to the amount allowed in the PAST.

OA: A 1972 agreement reduced the amount that municipalities ARE allowed to dump.
Here, the sentence refers to the amount CURRENTLY allowed.

Both meanings are sensical.