Sentence Correction

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

Source: OG 12
OA: D

My problem is the verb tense; I can't really wrap my mind around why using past perfect leads to a meaning that doesn't make sense. I mean, they dumped the phosphates before the agreement, just because we can't actually retroactively change the amount of dumping they used to do, why can't we use the past perfect here? I mean, the dumping happened before the agreement.....verb tense issues.....blahhhhhh

But you have answered your own question!

The reason that you cannot use past perfect tense is, as you said, it will not be logical.

It exactly as you have explained, you would be implying that the 1972 agreement changed the amount that "had been" allowed before the agreement.

If you took the early split and went for "reduced" instead of "reduces" and eliminated C and E. Then between A, B and D the only real difference is the verb used! So you can focus right in on that and say "what would the GMAT do?"

In conversation we would all interpret the sentence charitably and read the "had been allowed" as something going forward. But remember the GMAT is about being critical. I might mention my recent article on being more critical and less charitable - only until you have your GMAT score!
https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2011/03/ ... n-the-gmat

Thanks for the response Dave. I really meant that the explanation of using the past perfect which leads to an illogical answer doesn't make sense to me. I know that's the explanation, I just don't "see" it. It seems to me using the past perfect here just says that the dumping took place before the agreement.

Oh, I see....

It is illogical because the wording of the sentence implies that there was some sort of time travel involved!

There are two periods of dumping in question. First, we have the dumping prior to the agreement. This is the period of dumping that cannot be altered by the agreement without a time machine. The use of the past perfect implies that they used the 1972 agreement to modify the dumping that "had been" taking place in 1970 or 1969, etc. So this is what is not logical.

The second period of dumping is that which occurred after 1972 and up to right now. This is the dumping that the 1972 agreement could impact. The use of the present tense "are allowed to dump" in choice D indicates that the agreement reduced the amount that can be dumped now (after 1972). So this is logical - no time machine needed!

Does that help?

I just took the blinders off and had a "duh" moment....lol. Thanks a lot for your help! I literally read the sentence and just went, "this doesn't make any sense whatsoever".

David,
just to be sure I understand the tense, is this sentence correct?
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.

David@VeritasPrep wrote: The second period of dumping is that which occurred after 1972 and up to right now. This is the dumping that the 1972 agreement could impact. The use of the present tense "are allowed to dump" in choice D indicates that the agreement reduced the amount that can be dumped now (after 1972). So this is logical - no time machine needed!

Hi Verbal Experts@Veritas - While I understand the above explanation, but still I'm BIT confused that how we're interpreting this scenario in such a manner!

Suppose, at present the allowed amount is 100 units -- now this amount is the SAME AMOUNT that was allowed in 1972 (or immediately post-1972) after the agreement came into effect. Am I correct ?

So, this 100 units is ALREADY a reduced amount because of the implementation of 1972 agreement -- it WAS reduced back in 1972 and after reduction, the allowed amount was this 100 units immediately post-1972 agreement.

So, how we can really say that the 1972 agreement reduced this CURRENT allowed amount - 100 units that is allowed to dump at present ?

Please help!

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

David@VeritasPrep wrote: The second period of dumping is that which occurred after 1972 and up to right now. This is the dumping that the 1972 agreement could impact. The use of the present tense "are allowed to dump" in choice D indicates that the agreement reduced the amount that can be dumped now (after 1972). So this is logical - no time machine needed!

Hi Verbal Experts@Veritas - While I understand the above explanation, but still I'm BIT confused that how we're interpreting this scenario in such a manner!

Suppose, at present the allowed amount is 100 units -- now this amount is the SAME AMOUNT that was allowed in 1972 (or immediately post-1972) after the agreement came into effect. Am I correct ?

So, this 100 units is ALREADY a reduced amount because of the implementation of 1972 agreement -- it WAS reduced back in 1972 and after reduction, the allowed amount was this 100 units immediately post-1972 agreement.

So, how we can really say that the 1972 agreement reduced this CURRENT allowed amount - 100 units that is allowed to dump at present ?

Please help!

I see what you're saying. But it's not unreasonable to claim that a past tense action has altered a general state that is indicated by the use of the present tense. "Yesterday, Tim's mother decided to decrease the amount of television that Tim is allowed to watch." Tim's mother's decision in the past isn't literally decreasing the amount of TV that Tim is watching right now. But her past decision informs the current rules that Tim must abide by today.

So there is a theoretically logical way to interpret D in this question- that the reduction happened in the past and that this reduction informs the present. There simply isn't a logical way to interpret the other answer choices. A decision in 1972 can inform what happens today. But a decision in 1972 cannot retroactively inform what happened in 1971.