A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States...

[tim]

first --
OFFICIALLY CORRECT ANSWERS ARE CORRECT!
do not question officially correct answers!
far too many students on this forum make the mistake of questioning the correct answers; please note that doing so is a complete waste of your time and effort. i.e., exactly 0% of the time that you spend posting "isn't this official answer wrong?" is productive, and exactly 100% of that time is wasted.

"is this correct?" is never a productive question to ask about one of GMAC's correct answers. the answer is always yes.
"is this wrong?" / "is this X type of error?" is never a productive question to ask about one of GMAC's correct answers. the answer is always no.

instead, the questions you should be asking about correct official answers, if you don't understand them, are:
"why is this correct?"
"how does this work?"
"what understanding am i lacking that i need to understand this choice?"

this is a small, but hugely significant, change to your way of thinking.
you will suddenly find it much easier to understand the format, style, and conventions of the official problems if you retire the idea that they might be wrong.

considering all the answer choices contain "amount of phosphates", we are stuck with this wording. this means you just misinterpreted what type of noun phosphates is, but now you know. :)

[tinyturtle08]

Thank you so much Tim! I got it

[tim]

glad to hear it!

[rustom.hakimiyan]

Hi - I'm having a really hard time understanding why A & B are wrong. Let me clarify -- I know why you guys are saying it's wrong but I'm just not deciphering the meaning the same way everyone else is -- what am I doing wrong?

I read A & B as "The agreement b/w Can and US reduced the amount of phosphates(that will be dumped in the future) and it has been reduced(by an arbitrary %) compared to what they were allowed to dump in the past"

Why is that wrong?

[RonPurewal]

You have to read those choices literally.
"The amount they had been allowed to dump", and/or "...had been dumping", are historical figures. They're a done deal; they can't be changed.

If this still doesn't make sense to you, put a (pre-1972) year on them. E.g., the amounts that were specified in 1969.
Perhaps that will make it more clear"”you can't reduce the amounts that were specified in 1969, because they were specified in 1969. (The current figure can represent a diminution from those historical figures, but a diminution of those figures is impossible; we can't change history.) Same issue here.

[rustom.hakimiyan]

Thanks, Ron!

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[thanghnvn]

I do not agree with this question.

content of a book must be in present time.

the book writen in 1970 mentions the love between them

So, I think, "agreement" is similar to "content " of a book

the agreement in 1972 reduces the amount which is allowed to be dumped.

the correct verb in this sentence must be "reduces" not "reduced"


while we see that Official Guide questions are very nice and simbolize for formal writen Amemcian English, we have to admit that no one has no mistake.

[RonPurewal]

I do not agree with this question.

The official questions are not wrong.

If you "do not agree with" one of the GMAC questions, then...
"- The question is correct;
"- You are incorrect.

the correct verb in this sentence must be "reduces" not "reduced"

A reduction is something that happens at exactly one point in time.
The level was at value X. Then, in 1972, it was reduced. Afterward, it was at a lower value Y.

This is like saying "I grew by almost six inches in 1990". Not "I grow". It's a point change. It happened in 1990, and then it was over.

[rte.sushil]

In E, in the explanation it is mentioned that :-

A.)
allowed for dumping is an incorrect idiom;

B.)
I looked to idiom in manhattan book. It says:-

Right:
The holiday ALLOWS Maria TO WATCH the movie today. (= permits)
Maria WAS ALLOWED TO WATCH the movie.
The demolition of the old building ALLOWS FOR new construction.
(= permits the existence of)

So i am not able to clearly understand why A.) is wrong. Please clarify.

Thanks!

[rustom.hakimiyan]

Hi,

I picked D but that was almost a guess towards the end. Can you help me clarify if my understanding is correct?

A) Reduced the x that had been allowed to dump
(Had been implies an action in the past that is NOW OVER. Correct? If so -- why would we need an agreement that doesn't pertain to any live events.)

B) Reduced the x that municipalities had been dumping (Same as above. Additionally, this implies that this reduces something that happened in the past. This makes no sense b/c you can't revert the past.)

C) Reduces the phosphate amount municipalities have been allowed to dump (I don't see what's wrong with this one). I took this out because I didn't see a "that" between "amount" and "municipalities" because from a meaning standpoint -- doesn't this make sense? Agreement will reduce something that was happening in the future and still carries on today.

D) Reduced the amount that municipalities are allowed to dump. This makes the most sense.

E) Reduces the phosphates allowed for dumping. (Took this out because of "allowed for dumping" but from a time standpoint, this makes sense)

Am I correct in my above assessment?

One thing that still isn't clear is reduced vs. reduces. Can't an agreement(in the past), reduce stuff in the future? If so, why wouldn't "reduces" be OK here?

[RonPurewal]

Am I correct in my above assessment?

Pretty much.

One thing that still isn't clear is reduced vs. reduces. Can't an agreement(in the past), reduce stuff in the future? If so, why wouldn't "reduces" be OK here?

"Reduce" is not an ongoing state of existence. It's something that happens at one particular point in time.
That point in time was in 1972. So, past tense.

Analogy: I lost a bunch of weight in 2010. I can't write "I lose weight" now... because it happened in 2010.
Reduced, lost, same idea.

[rustom.hakimiyan]

One thing that still isn't clear is reduced vs. reduces. Can't an agreement(in the past), reduce stuff in the future? If so, why wouldn't "reduces" be OK here?

"Reduce" is not an ongoing state of existence. It's something that happens at one particular point in time.
That point in time was in 1972. So, past tense.

Analogy: I lost a bunch of weight in 2010. I can't write "I lose weight" now... because it happened in 2010.
Reduced, lost, same idea.

That makes it a lot clearer! I didn't treat "reduce" as a one time event, although I did treat "lost" as a one time event. I always treated "reduce" as an ongoing action while "reduced" served as a past/completed action.

Your explanation clarifies this point. Thanks!

[tim]

Great! Let us know if there are any further questions on this one.

[cherryj222]

Hi,

I picked D but that was almost a guess towards the end. Can you help me clarify if my understanding is correct?

A) Reduced the x that had been allowed to dump
(Had been implies an action in the past that is NOW OVER. Correct? If so -- why would we need an agreement that doesn't pertain to any live events.)

B) Reduced the x that municipalities had been dumping (Same as above. Additionally, this implies that this reduces something that happened in the past. This makes no sense b/c you can't revert the past.)

C) Reduces the phosphate amount municipalities have been allowed to dump (I don't see what's wrong with this one). I took this out because I didn't see a "that" between "amount" and "municipalities" because from a meaning standpoint -- doesn't this make sense? Agreement will reduce something that was happening in the future and still carries on today.

D) Reduced the amount that municipalities are allowed to dump. This makes the most sense.

E) Reduces the phosphates allowed for dumping. (Took this out because of "allowed for dumping" but from a time standpoint, this makes sense)

Am I correct in my above assessment?

One thing that still isn't clear is reduced vs. reduces. Can't an agreement(in the past), reduce stuff in the future? If so, why wouldn't "reduces" be OK here?

Hi, instructors. Just want to ask a question about choice c. I think the present perfect tense "have been allowed to dump" is incorrect as it cannot stand for an action that continue till now unless there is an explicit time period. Thus, "have been allowed to dump" suggest that this action has happened before. Since we cannot reduce something that has already been done, we therefore can elimilate choice c.
Am I correct? Looking for your reply. Thanks in advance.