Louis Mangione

Innovations in Education, Inc.

A 1972 Agreement Between Canada

No Comments »

1972..Agreement… We need a past verb. reduced is correct, reduced is wrong. 1.La compensation indicates that the amount dumped in the past has been dumped, cannot be reduced and that the facts of the past cannot be changed 2. The provisions of the act must be amended by something that has come into effect since the date of establishment, that is, the 1972 Act cannot reduce the amount of dumping in cities before that date. The temporal state of the status content should be the same as the point of the elaboration (s) or point (s) of (s) point (s) 3. If this was not as good as now in the general past, because the meaning of the sentence is continuous and always occurs in the verb “error 1” verb: similar, see (A) “tense verb”, “allowed” should not occur before “reduced” action, because “agreement” cannot reduce the future” The amount of phosphate that municipalities can drop. A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities were allowed to discharge into the Great Lakes. This is true: the importance of the combination of “reduced” in the past and “in general” now means “agreement (at the time) reduces the amount of phosphates that communities (and now generally) can switch to in the Great Lakes.” A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities were allowed to discharge into the Great Lakes. (A) reducing the amount of phosphates allowed to deposit municipalities (B), reducing the amount of phosphates that municipalities had eliminated (C), the amount of municipal phosphates were allowed (D) to the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to discharge (E), reducing the amount of phosphate authorized by municipalities for dumping. Options analysis: (A) reduces the amount of phosphates, allowing municipalities to unload the verb “error”: in the past, when “haed dumping” was completed, “waste has been disposed of” until the “reduced” measure has been put in place, but the agreement should indeed be “reduced” “municipal.” The amount of phosphates that can be released. (B) the amount of phosphate in the communes decreases the verb dumping: similar see “verb tense” in (A). Error 2: The phrase means “quantity of phosphate” means “quantity of phosphate” and cannot express “phosphate quantity” exactly as “the amount of phosphates,” so the meaning is less than (D). (C) reduces phosphate to the level of what was permitted,dump (error 1) tense verb: similar see “verb” in (A), “allowed” should not be the action that occurs before “reduced” because “agreement” can only reduce the number of phosphates that municipalities can unload in the future.

Error 2: Interpretation of the sentence: See “The question of the sentence” in (B). (D) the combination of “reduced” in the past and “may tip into the present general” agreement “, which reduces (at that time) the amount of phosphate that municipalities (and now in general) have been allowed to switch to the Great Lakes. A 1972 agreement between the United States and Canada had fewer phosphates than municipalities (now in general) could switch to the Great Lakes. (E) reduces the amount of phosphate for local dumping (error 1) sentence means: see (B) “sentence determination.” Bogue 2: Correction of concordance: “Allow for sth.” I can only say “above.” or “allowing the existence of sth”” does not mean “allowing something.” Solution: “Let sth. ” and “allow to do the sth.” The latter must be used for both combinations, without (E). The remaining options must be combined with the time-based analysis set, which means that the “decreasing” “protocol” can only “reduce” the amount of phosphates that could be dumped after the action, so that the “eligible” voltage should only meet this requirement “reduce,” only (D). So select (D). “Error” tense verb: In the past, “haded dumping” meant that waste was disposed of until the “reduced” action occurred

Comments are closed.