Jump to content
Urch Forums

Phosphates dumping in Great Lakes


Niegra

Recommended Posts

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 that 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

 

Why A is wrong? Why can't this sentence be read as - 1972 agreement reduced the amount, the dumping amount which was allowed prior to 1972 agreement. What I mean to say - e.g. before 1972 , allowable quantity for dumping was X, 1972 agreement reduced this amount.

 

OG says D is correct - Since the dumping continues into the present, the past perfect verb had been allowed should instead be the present are allowed

 

I think D changes meaning. How one can assume that dumping still continues- there could be another agreement, which might have banned phosphate dumping altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello There,

 

 

I do not know but I agree with D answer and here is why..

 

If been is used then it should be dumping and that is wrong with choice A. If something is still in action then I believe it should be have been. Had been means carried in past--- well I may sound stupid here --

 

Again the sentence is not saying that the agreement reduced the current dumping status. What all it is saying the agreement reduced the current amount. Whether that is implemented or not is out of scope of the sentence and is only an assumption.

 

so agrrement reduced amount of ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why contradicting OA 's are posted.. Can someone verify if the OA is A or D.IMO it should be A

 

Please refer to these threads for earlier discussions on this question.

 

http://www.www.urch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28514&highlight=1972

http://www.www.urch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15408&highlight=1972

http://www.www.urch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=596&highlight=1972

 

http://www.www.urch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20406&highlight=phosphates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with D. An agreement cannot reduce the amount that had been allowed. That previous amount cannot be changed. There is an allowable amount. That amount was bigger before the agreement, and has been reduced as a result of the agreement.

 

Analogy: Let's say the legislature has changed the speed limit. Which sounds better?

 

1) The legislature increased the maximum speed that one is allowed to drive.

2) The legislature increased the maximum speed that one had been allowed to drive.

 

I'll go with 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you please tell the OG question number. I am not able to find this question

 

OG-11th Edition

Question-62

 

I agree with D. An agreement cannot reduce the amount that had been allowed. That previous amount cannot be changed. There is an allowable amount. That amount was bigger before the agreement, and has been reduced as a result of the agreement.

 

Analogy: Let's say the legislature has changed the speed limit. Which sounds better?

 

1) The legislature increased the maximum speed that one is allowed to drive.

2) The legislature increased the maximum speed that one had been allowed to drive.

 

I'll go with 1.

 

Thanks! It is clear now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is there a big difference in 11th edition of OG versus 10th edition.
The 11th edition has a lot fewer questions than the 10th edition, and most (about two thirds) of the questions in the 11th edition are taken from the 10th. But the explanations in the 11th edition are expanded and more detailed.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Great discussions here. And special thanks to 800bob for sharing his great knowledge of the GMAT. It's nice to have another teacher here. :)

 

If I may be allowed to jump in, I'd like to add my two cents. First, I should note that while you should not change the meaning of A, you will notice in some cases that the literal meaning of A is often illogical; in such cases, you may deviate from the original meaning of A. I think it would be more accurate to say that you should not change the intended meaning of A. Of course we could get into some philosophical discussions of intended meaning, but for the sake of raising your GMAT score, I think it's most productive to try to play along with GMAT.

 

Second, to address this question, it doesn't make sense to use the past tense to refer to the result of the agreement; if you use the past tense, you are saying that the US and Canada agreed to retroactively change the amount of phosphates that could be dumped, which would in all likelihood have the effect of creating a lot of lawbreakers. ;) Since the vast majority of changes to laws are made such that the changes take place at some point in the future, you can safely assume that this is the case here as well.

 

Using the present tense simply means that the new law is in effect right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • 1 year later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...