can u explain the differences between agreement "to" vs. "of".
When agreement to can be used and when can we use agreement of
how this is different from agree with/to?
Please explain?
GMAT Forum
5 postsPage 1 of 1
- Meerak869
- Course Students
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 7:01 pm
- Chelsey Cooley
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:49 am
Re: agreement "to" vs. "of"
Could you share the examples that led you to ask this question?
- Meerak869
- Course Students
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 7:01 pm
Re: agreement "to" vs. "of"
Source: Gmat Hacks
The preliminary agreement to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process started moving before the end of 1710.
(A) to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process started moving
(B) to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, but the peace process started to move before the final treaty in March 1713
(C) to what was the Treaty of Utrecht was not signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process had started to move
(D) of what was the Treaty of Utrecht was not signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process had started moving
(E) of what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and of the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process was started moving
The preliminary agreement to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process started moving before the end of 1710.
(A) to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process started moving
(B) to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, but the peace process started to move before the final treaty in March 1713
(C) to what was the Treaty of Utrecht was not signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process had started to move
(D) of what was the Treaty of Utrecht was not signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process had started moving
(E) of what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and of the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process was started moving
- RonPurewal
- Students
- Posts: 19744
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
Re: agreement "to" vs. "of"
this is not a good question; you should ignore it.
- RonPurewal
- Students
- Posts: 19744
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
Re: agreement "to" vs. "of"
curiously, the 'author' of this sentence seems to have lifted it wholesale from this book:
https://books.google.com/books?id=dz6bO ... 22&f=false
in any case, by itself this is a bad sentence—it doesn't make sense without the larger surrounding context provided by the book.
if this sentence appears alone, there is no reason to write the first verb in any tense other than the simple past ("...was not signed until...").
the tense used here makes sense, but only because it appears (in the original book) in a context that suggests a sense of seemingly interminable delay.
also, the use of this tense is very florid and 'literary'. it's not bad writing per se, but it clashes sharply with the drier, more matter-of-fact style used by GMAC.
https://books.google.com/books?id=dz6bO ... 22&f=false
in any case, by itself this is a bad sentence—it doesn't make sense without the larger surrounding context provided by the book.
if this sentence appears alone, there is no reason to write the first verb in any tense other than the simple past ("...was not signed until...").
the tense used here makes sense, but only because it appears (in the original book) in a context that suggests a sense of seemingly interminable delay.
also, the use of this tense is very florid and 'literary'. it's not bad writing per se, but it clashes sharply with the drier, more matter-of-fact style used by GMAC.
5 posts Page 1 of 1