Television programs developed in conjunction with the marketing of

A. Television programs developed in conjunction with the marketing of toys, which was once prohibited by federal regulations, are ==> It sound as though "the marketing of toys" was once prohibited...

B. Television programs developed in conjunction with the marketing of toys, a practice that federal regulations once prohibited, is ==> Same as A

C. Developing television programs in conjunction with the marketing of toys, as once prohibited by federal regulations, is ==> Use of 'as' is weird/awkward; also its not the 'developing' rather than the 'programs' that were prohibited

D. Federal regulations once prohibited developing television programs in conjunction with the marketing of toys, but they are ==> Use of 'they' is unclear

E. Federal regulations once prohibited developing television programs in conjunction with the marketing of toys, but such programs are ==> Correct! Correctly conveys that such programs are now permitted..

Ask yourself what is "thriving in the free market conditions" - Television programs.
Subject is plural, so verb has to be plural

are Vs is - are wins.
B, C - out

D - out, "they" pronoun error

A Vs E - A sounds awkward

E for me

(B) Television programs developed in conjunction with the marketing of toys, a practice that federal regulations once prohibited, is
What does "is" refer to? is it referring to "programs" or "a practice"

The main subject of the sentence is "the television programs" so "are" should be used not "is"


(E) Federal regulations once prohibited developing television programs in conjunction with the marketing of toys, but such programs are
what role does "devloping" plays. is it adjective or adverb?

"developing" is a verb of the participle form ...

Official Explanation

Logical Predication; Agreement

The sentence is meant to indicate that federal programs once prohibited the development of television programs in conjunction with the marketing of toys, but such programs are now thriving in the free market conditions permitted by the Federal Communications Commission.

As worded, however, which was once prohibited . . . modifies the marketing of toys. This is clear for two reasons: first, the phrase immediately follows the marketing of toys; second, the verb was is singular and the noun Television programs is plural and must therefore be associated with the singular noun marketing of toys.

This indicates that the marketing of toys was once prohibited by federal regulations, but surely that is not what the sentence is supposed to mean. Rather,
the sentence should assert that the development of television programs in conjunction with the marketing of toys was prohibited.

A. This choice is incorrect for the reason discussed above.

B. The singular verb is is incorrect. It is the Television programs that are thriving, so the plural verb are is needed.

C. This option has at least two problems. First, surely the sentence is intended to indicate that the television programs themselves are thriving rather than that the process of developing such programs is. Second, it is unclear what the awkwardly worded as once prohibited by federal regulations is intended to modify. It could mean either that the development of television programs in conjunction with the marketing of toys was prohibited or that the marketing of toys itself was prohibited.

D. The intended referent of the pronoun they is unclear: it could be either Federal regulations or Television programs.

E. Correct. This choice best conveys the intended meaning.

The correct answer is E.

in E] is 'developing television programs' a noun ?

Yes, basically it's a Gerund (noun form of the verb). The way it works is that '-ing' form of the verb that is a direct object of the verb, is always a Gerund.

Since "developing..." is a direct object of the verb "prohibited", "developing..." is used as a Gerund here.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses ways to identify "Gerunds". If you or someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.

I feel that B is more elegant in the sense that it uses an appositive to state that previous development was once prohibited. Would fixing the SV agreement make B a better option?

Specifically, please tell me if an appositive can modify a participle as in this case.

Thanks in advance.

This modifier isn't accurate as written here, though.
In choice B, the modifier is describing "Television programs [+ modifiers]". Television programs were not the "practice" that Federal regulations once prohibited, so this modification doesn't work.

The practice once prohibited by Federal regulations was the development of TV programs in conjunction with the marketing of toys.
This appositive modifier starting with "the practice" will work only if the previous part says "The development of television programs...".

Hello smbbourne007,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, no; in this case, the appositive cannot modify the participle.

Appositives are noun modifiers, so the only participles they can modify are gerunds - present participles ("verb+ing") that are acting as nouns; they cannot modify past participles at all, as past participles never act as nouns.

Thus, in Option B, "a practice..." incorrectly modifies "Television programs", meaning Option B will not be correct even if the subject-verb disagreement is rectified.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Television programs developed in conjunction with the marketing of toys, which was once prohibited by federal regulations, are thriving in the free market conditions permitted by the current Federal Communications Commission.

(A) Television programs( Subject of the main clause) developed( verb-ed modifier modifying television) in conjunction with the marketing of toys(prepositional phrase), which was once prohibited by federal regulations("which was" is modifying the marketing of toys: This part is wrong, which can grammatically modify toys) , are ( Verb of the main clause) thriving .............



(B) Television programs developed in conjunction with the marketing of toys, a practice that federal regulations once prohibited, is ( Subject-verb disagreement)

(C) Developing television programs in conjunction with the marketing of toys, as once prohibited by federal regulations, is

( Meaning wise wrong : developing is not thriving, programs are thriving )

(D) Federal regulations once prohibited developing television programs in conjunction with the marketing of toys, but they ( pronoun of IC usually refer to the subject of the preceding clause ) are

(E) Federal regulations once prohibited developing television programs in conjunction with the marketing of toys, but such programs are( Correct)

Hi experts,

Would you please help to explain why option A is wrong? The OG claims that 'marketing of toys was once prohibited' is illogical. But in fact, we can't certainly eliminate the possiblity that marketing prohibition may happend, at least somewhere or sometimes.

So my question is Whether it is correct to prefer a choice over another because we think that meaning of the latter is not as plausible, though possible, as the former's?

That question isn't great because the meaning conveyed by the (A) version is not clearly illogical. As you said, it's quite possible that the marketing of toys was prohibited somewhere at some point.

The move here is to determine what the question writer was thinking in creating the question, and as is often the case, we can see that the other versions indicate that the point the the writer had in mind is that developing television programs in conjunction with the marketing of toys is the practice that was prohibited.

Once we see that, and notice that dropping in the idea that marketing of toys was prohibited is somewhat illogical in a couple ways, we can see that we should go with the (E) version, which conveys a meaning that makes a bit more sense.

Hello tinbq,

I will be happy to help you with this one.

In Choice A, the noun modifier "which was once prohibited..." illogically modifies the preceding noun "marketing of toys", suggesting that marketing of toys, in general, was prohibited. This meaning is illogical because, from our practical experience, we know that in this day and age toys and many other products depend on marketing for sale. Why would there be restrictions on the marketing of toys? Whether a situation may happen or not is only our hypothesis. There is no information in the sentence that supports this hypothesis.

We must understand the context of the sentence. The prohibition information is not about the marketing of toys, to begin with. The intended meaning is that TV programs developed along with the marketing of toys were once prohibited. But now, they are thriving. So, we must always pay attention to the context of the entire sentence to understand what certain entities are meant to connect with to present the logical meaning.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of this sentence is that developing television programs in conjunction with the marketing of toys was once prohibited under federal regulations, but such programs are thriving in the free market conditions permitted by the current Federal Communications Commission.

Concepts tested here: Subject-Verb Agreement + Meaning + Modifiers + Pronouns

• "who/whose/whom/which/where", when preceded by a comma, refer to the noun just before the comma.
• In a “noun + comma + phrase” construction, the phrase must correctly modify the noun; this is one of the most frequently tested concepts on GMAT sentence correction.

A:
1/ This answer choice incorrectly refers to "the marketing of toys" with the phrase "which was once prohibited by federal regulations", incorrectly implying that the practice of marketing toys was once prohibited; the intended meaning is that the practice of developing television programs in conjunction with the marketing of toys was once prohibited; remember, "who/whose/whom/which/where", when preceded by a comma, refer to the noun just before the comma.

B: Trap.
1/ This answer choice incorrectly refers to the plural noun "Television programs" with the singular verb "is".
2/ Option B incorrectly modifies "the marketing of toys" with the phrase "a practice that federal regulations once prohibited", incorrectly implying that the practice of marketing toys was once prohibited; the intended meaning is that the practice of developing television programs in conjunction with the marketing of toys was once prohibited; remember, in a “noun + comma + phrase” construction, the phrase must correctly modify the noun.

C:
1/ This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the clause "Developing television programs...is thriving..."; the construction of this clause incorrectly implies that the practice of developing television programs in conjunction with the marketing of toys was once prohibited under federal regulations, but this practice is thriving in the free market conditions permitted by the current Federal Communications Commission; the intended meaning is that the practice of developing television programs in conjunction with the marketing of toys was once prohibited under federal regulations, but such programs are thriving in the free market conditions permitted by the current Federal Communications Commission.

D:
1/ This answer choice suffers from pronoun ambiguity, as it is unclear whether "they" refers to "television programs" or "toys".

E: Correct.
1/ This answer choice correctly refers to the plural noun "programs" with the plural verb "are".
2/ Option E uses the clause "Federal regulations once prohibited developing television programs in conjunction with the marketing of toys", avoiding the modifier errors seen in Options A and B and conveying the intended meaning - that the practice of developing television programs in conjunction with the marketing of toys was once prohibited.
3/ Option E uses the clause "but such programs are thriving...Commission", conveying the intended meaning - that the practice of developing television programs in conjunction with the marketing of toys was once prohibited under federal regulations, but such programs are thriving in the free market conditions permitted by the current Federal Communications Commission.
4/ Option E avoids the pronoun ambiguity seen in Option D, as it uses no pronouns.

Hence, E is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Which", "Who", "Whose", and "Where" on GMAT you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



To understand the concept of "Phrase Comma Subject" and "Subject Comma Phrase" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

I have 2 questions regarding option B
The phrase "a practice that federal regulations once prohibited" is a noun + noun modifier. Does this not mean that this phrase can correctly modify the entire preceding clause - "Television programs developed in conjunction with the marketing of toys" ? So it is correctly saying that this was a practice that was prohibited. Please confirm this understanding.

2'nd question - the verb "is" cannot refer to "a practice" because it is inbetween commas and hence a non essential clause?

Request your help please.

@GmatNinja, @MartyTargetTestPrep

Utkersh

On the first point, you're close. "A practice" is creating a noun modifier, and it modifies the whole preceding part, but that part is just a noun phrase, not a clause. (if it were a clause, we'd need an adverbial modifier.) But the main noun is "programs," and those are not a practice. To use this modifier correctly, we'd need the subject to be something like "The development of TV programs . . . "

As for the second, there's no such thing as a "non-essential clause." As you've already pointed out, the "practice" part isn't a clause at all--it's a modifier. (A clause has a subject and verb.) The comma indicates that the modifier is over and we are returning to the main core of the sentence. IS isn't a good match for the subject (PROGRAMS), but that's the match that B is making. In any case, if IS were somehow attached to the previous modifier, we'd still have a problem, since then our subject wouldn't have a verb at all!

I'd recommend looking at these things more in terms of the main sentence core (subject + verb) and modifiers. Don't reason about things "in between commas"--a vague notion at best--and don't worry too much about non-essential modifiers. There's not much evidence that the GMAT tests this at all.

I was very confused by this one because I actually thought the meaning of the sentence was that "marketing of toys was prohibited" and not Television programs + marketing. Hence I concluded E changes the meaning and eliminated it.

How do I INFER the Intended meaning of the sentence?

Also, in a few countries certain toys are actually banned