A substance from the licorice plant, 50 times sweeter than

Question

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
(B) A substance, which was recently discovered, from the licorice plant, 50 times sweeter than sucrose
(C) A substance from the licorice plant, which was recently discovered to be 50 times sweeter than sucrose,
(D) A substance from the licorice plant, 50 times sweeter than sucrose , which was recently discovered,
(E) A recently discovered substance, 50 times sweeter than sucrose from the licorice plant,

Ritesh · Answer

E seems to be the only logical one over here...OA?

arjsingh1976 · Answer

If u read rest of the sentence, it has 'is' and we can't have 'was' and 'is' together.

asaf · Answer

As strange as it sound I prefer B.

(C) A substance from the licorice plant, which was recently discovered to be 50 times sweeter than sucrose, - something funny about 'to be'

(D) A substance from the licorice plant, 50 times sweeter than sucrose , which was recently discovered, -- modifier phrase needs to be next to 'substance from...' as it is modifying that not the the sucrose.

(E) A recently discovered substance, 50 times sweeter than sucrose from the licorice plant, (sucrose from the licorice plant) change the meaning

trivikram · Answer

Here there is a comparision problem 'cos of an intruder.

Eliminate it and the text in  blue  in choice B can also be eliminated...

B wins

Viperace · Answer

B is the best.

All other choices have obvious mistake

A) run-on
C) 'which' incorrectly modifies plant
D) 'which' incorrectly modifies sucrose
E) sucrose from the licorice plant - meaning changed

aurobindo · Answer

OA is B. Thanks guys.

bmwhype2 · Answer

(B) A substance, which was recently discovered, from the licorice plant,  50 times sweeter than sucrose 

Doesn't  50 times sweeter than sucrose  imply that the licorice plant is  50 times sweeter than sucrose  rather than the substance found from the licorice plant?

saransh · Answer

All options are bad but B.


Hi bmwhype2

I think if there is no conjuction then it modfies the whole principal clause which is a substance from Licorice plant.

what do u think of this :
A licorice plant's substance ,50% sweeter than sucrose


~sara

iamba · Answer

B is the best, but it has modifier problem too as indicated by bmwhype2

bmwhype2 · Answer

another issue. why is there an comma in B? 


A substance,  which was recently discovered, from the licorice plant , 50 times...
vs
A substance,  which was recently discovered from the licorice plant , 50 times...

bmwhype2 · Answer

I think adding  which is  to  50 times sweeter than sucrose  makes it clearly modify the  licorice plant. 

 A substance, which was recently discovered, from the licorice plant,   which is   50 times sweeter than sucrose....

plaguerabbit · Answer

yeah there are problems with every answer choice here. nice catch, bmwhype.

what is the source of this question?

bmwhype2 · Answer

ok figured it out.

appositives do not modify prepositional phrases.

trivikram · Answer

Thats cool...

So in this question  50 times sweeter than sucrose  cannot modify 
 from the licorice plant

dwivedys · Answer

While what you say makes a lot of sense, even though I have not read or heard of such a rule but can relate to it through common sense, I would still like to qualify it further

Appositives generally do not modify prepositional phrases IF the appostives are separated from the prepositional phrase with a comma.

Why I say so?

Compare this

 A substance, which was recently discovered, from the licorice plant, 50 times sweeter than sucrose 

With

 A substance, which was recently discovered,   from the licorice plant 50 times sweeter than sucrose    

Once you remove the comma, the boundary of the prepositional phrase extends RIGHT through the end upto sucrose; hence the phrase "50 times sweeter than sucrose" modifies the nearest available noun, which is "the licorice plant".

Supplanting a comma after licorice plant as in the red choice 1 - demarcates the end of the prepositional phrase AND since prepositional phrases are parenthetical - the appositive SHOULD modify the subject of the phrase or clause preceding it. 

Now I urge you to consider another scenario - what if you  wanted  to modify the object of the prepositional phrase itself and NOT the subject preceding the prepositional phrase (in our case - the substance) - 

For example, say you wanted to say  the licorice plant dreaded for its thorns  --- in that case -- my sense tells me that "dreaded for its thorns" should NOT be preceded by a comma in order for it to modify licorice plant (as its intended purpose is). 

BUT, at the same time, I feel we are better off separating "Dreaded for its thorns" with a comma because adding a comma would actually produce the desired effect of this phrase being a NON RESTRICTIVE phrase modifying the licorice plant.

Read the sentences below - one with a comma and the other without it and FEEL where the comma seems appropriate and where it seems to be obstructing the flow of the sentence

With the comma

 from the licorice plant, dreaded for its thorns, 50 times sweeter than sucrose,  

To me comma seems required - because - dreaded for its thorns has been added as an after thought and is NOT integral to the over all meaning of the sentence - 

Without the comma -

 from the licorice plant dreaded for its thorns, 50 times sweeter than sucrose,  

Here without the comma - dreaded for its thorns makes it appear as if there is a certain variety of licorice plant THAT is dreaded for its thorns 

Thus in a sense - the comma produces the effect of a restrictive and a non-restrictive clause - the reader needs to decide whether the appositive is better off being set aside by commas or should NOT be set off with commas.

Either way it's hard to say one way or the other whether the appositive can modify the prepositional phrase or not. 

Generally, if the appositive immediately following a prepositional phrase - is set off with a comma AND can logically be seen  apart  from the prepositional phrase THEN it CAN modify the preceding subject (before the prepositional phrase) - 

but in another related case - as shown above - even if the appositive is set off with a comma you should double check to see whether it can modify the object of the prepositional phrase; in such a case there's an ambigous reference problem (much like a pronoun reference erro) which should be corrected through some other agency.

Long sermon - but I thought it well worth to take a shot and expound and see if others agree.

A substance from the licorice plant, 50 times sweeter than

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards