A substance from the licorice plant, 50 times sweeter than sucrose, wa

Although OA is B, it is very controversial answer.
I could for instance easily choose C.

Right-- I just now noticed that the intended meaning is that the substance was recently discovered, and not that the substance was recently discovered to be 50 times sweeter...

Hey All,

WHAT IN THE WORLD? I got asked by PM to take this one on. It's ridiculous. Where is this from? None of these answers are grammatically correct. I don't know who wrote it, but there are not any right answers here.

A substance from the licorice plant, 50 times sweeter than sucrose, was recently discovered, is not only a natural sweetener but also prevents tooth decay.

(A) A substance from the licorice plant, 50 times sweeter than sucrose, was recently discovered
PROBLEM: Okay. You can't say "A substance from the licorice plant". You could say, "A substance derived from the licorice plant", but not "A substance from the licorice plant." It's meaningless. Also, we already have a main verb "was", so we can't then say "is" with the same subject.

(B) A substance, which was recently discovered, from the licorice plant, 50 times sweeter than sucrose,
PROBLEM: Same "substance from the licorice plant" issue from above. As for people arguing that this is a legitimate modifier, I don't see why. This is so hideous a way to word the sentence, I refuse to believe GMAC would EVER say it was correct. The placement of 50 times sweeter than sucrose, coming as it does after TWO modifiers (a relative clause beginning with "which" and a prepositional phrase beginning with "from") is totally ugly. TECHNICALLY, yes, the 50 times traces logically to "substance", but the writing is awful.

(C) A substance from the licorice plant, which was recently discovered to be 50 times sweeter than sucrose,
PROBLEM: "Substance from the licorice plant". The discovery is supposed to be the new substance, not the fact that it's 50 times sweeter. Also, "which" is a bit unclear here (it should touch "substance", not "plant").

(D) A substance from the licorice plant, 50 times sweeter than sucrose , which was recently discovered,
PROBLEM: "Substance from the licorice plant". Here the WHICH definitely refers to sucrose, when it should be referring to substance.

(E) A recently discovered substance, 50 times sweeter than sucrose from the licorice plant,
PROBLEM: "Substance from the licorice plant." It's not sweeter than sucrose from the licorice plant. It's the substance from the licorice plant that's sweeter than sucrose.

I'm definitely interested in talking this one out, but I've never seen an answer choice like B on a legitimate test. It's ridiculous, as are all of these answer choices.

To be honest, answer choice C is the closest to grammatically correct (you can make a case for using which to modify a compound noun "The house on the corner, which I love, is on fire." -- "which I love" is clearly modifying "house..." and the "on the corner" is another modifier of "house"), though it changes the meaning of the discovery. Is the OA really B here? If so, this is a WRONG question.

-tommy

Hey Tommy,

for option (B), you said:

Do you mind elaborating how "50 times sweeter than sucrose" phrase traces back to the word "substance" and not "licorice plant"?

A substance from the licorice plant, 50 times sweeter than sucrose, was recently discovered, is not only a natural sweetener but also prevents tooth decay.

(B) A substance, which was recently discovered, from the licorice plant, 50 times sweeter than sucrose,

Hey Seek,

A substance from the licorice plant, 50 times sweeter than sucrose, was recently discovered, is not only a natural sweetener but also prevents tooth decay.

(B) A substance, which was recently discovered, from the licorice plant, 50 times sweeter than sucrose,

Well, we make a big deal about how "which" always needs to touch the thing it modifies, but sometimes the thing it modifies requires a modifier after it, so we can't tough the original noun. For example:

The bird of paradise, which comes from America, is pretty.

In this case "bird of paradise" is one thing, so we are touching it, even though TECHNICALLY we're touching the word "paradise" which is part of the modifier "of paradise". Similarly:

The Great Palace of Siam, which was built in 1250, is beautiful.

Again, "which" is touching the word "Siam", not "Great Palace", but there would be NO WAY to write this sentence where both the prepositional phrase "of Siam" and the prepositional phrase "which was built in 1250" were both touching "Great palace".

In our original sentence (B), you could make the case that "A substance from the licorice plant" is it's own thing. Two modifiers can't simultaneously touch "substance", so the best we can do is put the "which" after "plant".

Hope that makes sense!

-tommy

tommy

I think we need that not which here -

A substance from the licorice plant that was recently discovered to be 50 times sweeter than sucrose, is not only a natural sweetener but also prevents tooth decay.

Hey Nusmavrik,

The difference between "that" and "which" (other than that which requires a comma, and that cannot have a comma) is that whatever comes after the "that" has to be ESSENTIAL to the sentence, whereas whatever comes after "which" should be NON-ESSENTIAL to the sentence. However, in this crappy sentence from God knows where, I don't think you could make much of a case either way.

In the example you gave:

A substance from the licorice plant that was recently discovered to be 50 times sweeter than sucrose, is not only a natural sweetener but also prevents tooth decay.

You could argue that the main point of the sentence is simply that "a substance from the licorice plant is not only a natural sweetener but also prevents tooth decay", and that the point if its being 50 times sweeter than sucrose is an aside.

You could also argue that it's critical that we know how sweet it is for it to be important that it's also natural and too preventative.

Being totally honest, if I HAD to pick, I'd still pick choice #1, which would require "which" not "that". But I wouldn't decide this one either way on that alone, because it's too tough a call.

I hate this sentence.

-tommy

Please refer to the next post....

Hey All,

dwivedys explanation is good, but I just wanted to correct. Answer choice A doesn't lack a main verb. It's that it ends a full independent sentence at "was discovered", then tries to start a new clause, but without a subject.

-t

Hi Tommy, thanks for your input. I'd still like to clarify it though. A clause by definition has both a subject and verb. It could be an independent or a dependent (subordinate) clause meaning the clause can stand independently or has to depend on some other clause. So we cannot say that choice A starts a new clause after "was discovered"; it simply stitches another verb in the sentence (without a subject and hence cannot be called a "clause"), and it is unclear which should be treated as the main verb even though "was discovered" can be inferred to be the main verb from the context. Thoughts?

Hi Guys,

While you're on the topic, these are important terms to clarify.

A clause is simply a subject and verb, but there are 4 kinds:

1) Independent
2) Dependent
3) Main
4) Relative (a.k.a. Subordinate)

Ex. I eat when I am hungry.
Independent: I eat (This clause can be a sentence on its own.)
Dependent: when I am hungry (Because of the "when", this clause cannot be a sentence on its own.)

Ex. Frogs that live in trees eat flies.
Main: Frogs eat flies (The main clause is the clause on the outside.)
Relative/Subordinate: that (referring to frogs) live in trees (This clause starts with a relative pronoun and is the clause on the inside.)

So while a main clause (outside) is always independent, an independent clause is not necessarily a main clause. When we talk about main clauses we are referring to outside (versus inside) clauses.

Let me know if this is at all confusing...

Best,
Sarai

Hey D,

I see what you mean. It's just a confusing way to put it. It's not that A lacks a "main verb" (which isn't really a term). It's an independent clauses. The subject is "substance", and the verb is "was discovered". The problem is that we then get a comma, and suddenly a new verb that has no subject. It isn't a clause, because it has no subject, so yes, it's just a fragment. Agreed?

-tommy

Source is 1000SC. Specifically problem 951.

It is also strange that the not-underlined part contains not only X but also Y, without X and Y being ||

X is a noun, and Y a verb.

Hey Noburu,

Good point! I didn't even notice that! This sentence sucks!

-t

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.