A 1972 agreement between canada and the united states

[aiming800]

1. 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




Hi,
First of all,I am aware that this question is very controversial but I would still like to
clarify my doubt.

What I believe here is that the answer could be anyone of A and D depending on what
the pronoun "that" modifies here.



If "that" modifies "amount of phosphates" then the answer should be A.
and
If "that" modifies "phosphates" then answer should be D


Say the "amount of phosphates" that municipalities were allowed to dump was 1000 Kg at the time/before of the agreement and

the agreement decided the amount to be reduced to 500 Kgs. Then i think it is correct to say that

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.

OR

A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced thamount of phosphates, amount that municipalities had been allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.e


In this case that modifies "amount of phosphates" and it is nonsensical to say that

The agreement reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump into the Great lakes.

Because the agreement can't reduce 500kgs to 500kgs(the amount allowed to dump in the present).

It can reduce 1000kgs, which was the amount allowed before the agreement, to 500 Kgs.

Now if we consider the second case where "that" modifies "phosphates" it is perfect to say that

A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.

OR

A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates, phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.

It makes sense because municipalities are still allowed to dump the phosphates

and the amount of these phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump was reduced by the agreement.

Now my question is that OG considers the second interpretation and explains the answer as D. But why the first interpretation is not possible.

Can't "that" modify the "amount of phosphates"

I request all the GMAT instructors and future takers to participate in this discussion and correct me if I have gone wrong anywhere in my understanding.

My exam date is approaching and It will be really helpful if you reply at the earliest.


Thanks,

[GMATGuruNY]

1. 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

Thanks,

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.

I think that you're focusing on the wrong issue; the primary issue here is tense.

[Tani]

The issue here is time. The agreement did not reduce the amount that had been allowed. The amount that "had been" allowed was unchanged - the agreement did not make the changes retroactive. It changed the amount municipalities are allowed to dump - i.e. it changed the current amount, not the amount that was allowed before the change. Only D gets that right. It should NOT be controversial!

[mundasingh123]

1. 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

Thanks,

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 describes an action that was completed before another past action. How could the 1972 agreement have reduced an action that had already been completed?

The correct answer is D.

I think that you're focusing on the wrong issue; the primary issue here is tense.

Hi gmatguruNy ,

How could the 1972 agreement have reduced an action that had already been completed?

But In A the 1972 agreement changed the stipulated amount not the action . I didnt really get this

[GMATGuruNY]

1. 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

Thanks,

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 describes an action that was completed before another past action. How could the 1972 agreement have reduced an action that had already been completed?

The correct answer is D.

I think that you're focusing on the wrong issue; the primary issue here is tense.

Hi gmatguruNy ,

How could the 1972 agreement have reduced an action that had already been completed?

But In A the 1972 agreement changed the stipulated amount not the action . I didnt really get this

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...

[mundasingh123]

1. 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

Thanks,

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 describes an action that was completed before another past action. How could the 1972 agreement have reduced an action that had already been completed?

The correct answer is D.

I think that you're focusing on the wrong issue; the primary issue here is tense.

Hi gmatguruNy ,

How could the 1972 agreement have reduced an action that had already been completed?

But In A the 1972 agreement changed the stipulated amount not the action . I didnt really get this

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...

Very Subtle . I got it but dont know whether i will be able to remember this

[mundasingh123]

Hi GmatGuruNY , Thanks . Could you also give me a general structure or rule that i can apply in the future to other problems . This was very well and concisely explained

[sarvojith]

1. 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

Thanks,

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 describes an action that was completed before another past action. How could the 1972 agreement have reduced an action that had already been completed?

The correct answer is D.

I think that you're focusing on the wrong issue; the primary issue here is tense.

Hi GMATGuruNY,

I chose option C for the following reasons:

the 1972 agreement, by implication, is still an active agreement. Using past tense - reduced - would be inappropriate. E.g., the tax treaty between USA and India reduces the double taxation of income in both countries. Or, the US-UK tax treaty provides for 'source-country' taxation of royalty payments. It may be inappropriate to use instead 'reduced', or, 'provided'.

"have been" - it is past and continues (from 1972) to the present

"have been" thus travels with the 1972 treaty which "reduces" the phosphate amount...

"phosphate amount" is a better expression than "amount of phosphates". this is because 'amount' is non-countable, and moreover, the plural of phosphate is phosphate - there is no one phosphate, and two phosphates! so, "amount of phosphates" would be incorrect.

Kindly correct my french, if at all! Thanks!

[teal]

Hello GMATGuruNY,

Regarding your post:

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...


How did you figure this out? I have a hard time understanding this concept that agreement was NOT to reduce the amount that had been allowed rather it was to reduce the amount to be dumped moving forward from the date of agreement?

I am stuck between D and E. Please help. Still don't get it.

_________________

[GMATGuruNY]

Hello GMATGuruNY,

Regarding your post:

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...


How did you figure this out? I have a hard time understanding this concept that agreement was NOT to reduce the amount that had been allowed rather it was to reduce the amount to be dumped moving forward from the date of agreement?

I am stuck between D and E. Please help. Still don't get it.

_________________

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?

[tkiwhite]

Hello GMATGuruNY,

Regarding your post:

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...


How did you figure this out? I have a hard time understanding this concept that agreement was NOT to reduce the amount that had been allowed rather it was to reduce the amount to be dumped moving forward from the date of agreement?

I am stuck between D and E. Please help. Still don't get it.

_________________

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 GuruNY,
When I look at this sentence, I take the "1972" as the perfect past tense mark. As you were saying, there should be another tense mark before "1972" to justify the using of "had been allowed". Do I get it correctly?

[shubhamkumar]

Hello GMATGuruNY,

Regarding your post:

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...


How did you figure this out? I have a hard time understanding this concept that agreement was NOT to reduce the amount that had been allowed rather it was to reduce the amount to be dumped moving forward from the date of agreement?

I am stuck between D and E. Please help. Still don't get it.

_________________

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?

Hello GMATGuruNY,
So if I apply the same logic to A, how can a 1972 agreement reduce the amount that the mup. are allowed.What I am trying to imply is that the 1972 agreement can only reduce the amount which was allowed at that point of time i.e. 1972.What if there was another agreement between 1972 and now which further reduced the amount.
This discussion seems yet to be over

[dandarth1]

Hello GMATGuruNY,

Regarding your post:

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...


How did you figure this out? I have a hard time understanding this concept that agreement was NOT to reduce the amount that had been allowed rather it was to reduce the amount to be dumped moving forward from the date of agreement?

I am stuck between D and E. Please help. Still don't get it.

_________________

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,

I don't think past perfect always implies that an action was COMPLETED before another past event. If this sentence said, "had dumped" rather than "had BEEN allowed", then it would imply completion. Had been implies that it was allowed up until another point in the past, which seems to make perfect sense in this sentence.

[wondering_too]

Strange thing...

Now I can't understand why D is not eliminated due to use of Present Tense.

I am not a native speaker, so I am trying to apply the "sequence of tenses" rule. It says that for a sequence of tenses, you can put only past tense after past tense (unless it is a well known fact). So, my guess that the right answer looks like:

" A 1972 agreement ... reduced the amount of phosphates that municipaplities were allowed to dump." (not ... are allowed to dump)

As I thought before, the present tense can be used in the situations like:

"The teacher said that the water boils at 100 degrees", but not in
"The teacher said that he was ill"

As I understand, this rule has a lot of exceptions and I should not rely on it that much.

[soulwangh]

I find chinese people have difficulties about the tense of this question.
However, native english speaker take it for granted.

In Chinese thinking, we can reduce the amount that was allowed.

After the reduction enact, the agreement has nothing to do with the new amount. Because its new and totally in compliance with the agreement.

Funny!