First sold May 1, 1924, iodized salt that made its way in regular di

Is the use of 'that' in option A correct??
We are talking of iodised salt as a common/general noun, use of that restricts its scope, it seems as if the salt that reduced (a particular subset of salt) incidences of goitre is playing a role in brain development.

Posted from my mobile device

Hello, Akash. Regarding your questions, in option (C), with the proposed sentence I created, there is an understood or implied subject behind the action. It is not uncommon to read a sentence such as The stock initially traded at $1.00. Sure, the stock did not trade itself, but we understand that human beings (or computers) were doing the trading, that the sentence is emphasizing the original purchase price to the consumer. As for choice (D), yes, your placement of iodized salt makes the sentence clear and direct.

I would not worry too much about potential sentences, though, since the test is designed to throw you four incorrect options at a time. You can only go by what is on the screen in front of you, not by what could be there.

- Andrew

Hello, Akash. I will offer my thoughts below.


The phrasing seems a bit off to me, specifically made its way in regular diet. As a native speaker, I want it to say something like made its way into the regular diet, but the grammatical framework of the sentence is fine: modifier, subject + dependent clause, predicate. There is also strong parallelism in to reduce and to play. In short, I see no GMAT™-specific reason to get rid of this answer choice, so I agree with you.


More than the placement of the -ing modifier is the meaning it conveys, or at least the meaning it attempts to convey. If we skip over the which clause, we have a sentence that is difficult to understand: Iodized salt, making its way for reducing the incidence of goiter... What? Is iodized salt making its own way here? Furthermore, notice that for reducing and to play are non-parallel elements. On the whole, this one is an easy elimination.


Without a comma before first, the modifier could be thought of as a verb instead: Iodized salt first sold [on] May 1, 1924. That would be an independent clause. Then, because the which clause is self-contained within the double commas, the comma preceding the phrase has been found to is justified. The shell of the sentence would be saying, Iodized salt first sold May 1, 1924... and has been found to... It is not a great sentence—notice, again, the non-parallel for reducing and to reduce—but it could masquerade as a non-GMAT™ sentence. It goes without saying that the meaning expressed between the original sentence and this one has been altered.


Although it is okay to join two modifiers to delay the main clause, this sentence does so in a manner that would not make the grade. I would expect something similar to the following instead: First sold May 1, 1924 and thereafter making its way... The conjunction and would clearly make the modifiers parallel elements, and thereafter would suggest that after its introduction, iodized salt at some point began to be used to reduce the incidence of goiter, perhaps gradually.


I agree that also playing is problematic: the finding has been removed from the sentence altogether. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with the sentence as a standalone. However, given what the other four options were driving at, between this one and (A), the other sentence better encompasses the main ideas.

I hope you find that helpful. Thank you for bringing the question to my attention.

- Andrew

Hello, him1105. The very issue you have identified as a potential flaw is the one that makes the sentence work, in terms of meaning. It was, in fact, iodized salt, as opposed to, say, sea salt, that reduced incidences of goiter, and it is, according to the sentence, this exact type or subset of salt that has now been found to play a role in brain development. Although background knowledge is not required to pick through the answer choices and identify which ones are historically accurate, I have read before about iodized salt and its use in reducing the occurrence of goiters. (I seem to recall a story about wartime recruits, although I am not even sure whether it was WWI or WWII, who were called Michigan boys or some such because people from that area were not consuming iodized salt and thus had higher populations with goiters.) The second part of the sentence, about more recent findings, is news to me. I would guess it is accurate, but I would have to look that one up. In any case, yes, the that clause in (A) is firmly grounded.

- Andrew

Hi Madan

Some of the explanations have addressed this option. Let me try to elaborate on them.

The original sentence has three distinct parts:

i) Iodized salt was first sold on May 1, 1924.
ii) Iodized salt made its way in regular diet to reduce the incidence of goiter.
iii) Iodized salt has also been found to play a crucial role in brain development, especially during gestation.

Now, as per the original sentence, parts (i) and (ii) do not have any order or priority, except logically we can assume that the "made its way into regular diet" happened after "first sold". However, the use of "has also been found" clearly tells us that the role played by iodized sale in brain development was a later discovery and probably unintended effect.

In option (E), this subtle differentiation is removed when it says "...also playing". This makes it appear as if the role played by iodized salt in brain development was one of the intended uses of the compound. In the minimum, this is a possibility. There is no other grammatical or logical error in option (E).

Given the questions that can be raised around option (E), and option (A) being devoid of such questions or any other error, it is better to go with option (A).

Hope this helps.

Hello, pranayraj98. The original sentence does not need a comma because the relative clause, the one that begins with that, contains essential information and needs to resolve before we can get to the verb. If that were which and the information were considered non-essential, then yes, we would expect to see commas both before and after the relative clause.


The sentence follows a subject-relative clause-verb-participle construct. We are only interested in the earlier part, though, relative to your question. Consider a similar, simpler sentence. We would not write, The car that drove down the street, was black. I will say, nevertheless, that the GMAT™ takes a somewhat relaxed stance on comma usage, so unless you are positive that there is an error, you should probably look to other points of consideration to assess the merits of each option.

I hope this information proves useful to you. Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew

First sold May 1, 1924, iodized salt that made its way in regular diet to reduce the incidence of goiter has also been found to play[/u] a crucial role in brain development, especially during gestation.
A)First sold May 1, 1924, iodized salt that made its way in regular diet to reduce the incidence of goiter has also been found to play
B) Iodized salt, which was first sold May 1, 1924, making its way for reducing the incidence of goiter, has also been found to play
C) Iodized salt first sold May 1, 1924, which made its way in regular diet for reducing the incidence of goiter, and has been found to
D) First sold May 1, 1924, making its way in regular diet to reduce the incidence of goiter, iodized salt has also been found to play
E) First sold May 1, 1924, iodized salt has made its way in regular diet to reduce the incidence of goiter, also playing[/quote]


Meaning: iodized salt first sold in 1924, it made a way in regular diet because of goiter.
2. it is found to play crucial role in brain devolpment.

Option A: First sold May 1, 1924, right modifier is used after that iodized salt is right subject but as "making its way " is a part it should be placed in comma.
WRONG.
Option B: which clause make it like that first sold is not an important part of sentence. -INCORRECT
Option C: Same as B-incorrect
option D: Modifer is not placed at right place-Incorrect
Option E: Grammatically correct but change the meaning. It does not state that iodized salt have been found to play a crucial role. -Incorrect


I think all options are incorrect but still marked B, because it appears less evil.

Pls explain.

The option A does not sound fine to me. Option B is more convincing in terms of the structure of the sentence.

I found the "first sold May" construct awkward. Shouldn't it have been first sold "in" May?

Posted from my mobile device

Hi ravigupta2912,

You may want to go through this official question. More generally, try to start by looking for more "sure" entry points. Keep things like awkwardness, redundancy, use of the passive voice, and wordiness for when you cannot find a more reliable way to take a call.

Hi AjiteshArun ,

Is the use of "has also been" after a that clause correct? especially use of also?

First sold May 1, 1924, iodized salt that made its way in regular diet to reduce the incidence of goiter has also been found to play a crucial role in brain development, especially during gestation.

Hello,

About option A: can you please explain why we have `that` after `iodized salt`.

Thank you

Dear Experts!!

Choose A but wasn't confident with D & E.
Could anybody please enlighten us on option D & E?

Thanks in advance

Hi AndrewMentorTutoring,

Could you please validate my line of reasoning here.

First sold May 1, 1924, iodized salt that made its way in regular diet to reduce the incidence of goiter has also been found to play a crucial role in brain development, especially during gestation.
A)First sold May 1, 1924, iodized salt that made its way in regular diet to reduce the incidence of goiter has also been found to play - Seems okay, will hold on to it.
B) Iodized salt, which was first sold May 1, 1924, making its way for reducing the incidence of goiter, has also been found to play - the -ing modifier is placed far away from Iodized salt.
C) Iodized salt first sold May 1, 1924, which made its way in regular diet for reducing the incidence of goiter, and has been found to - Lacks a main verb.
D) First sold May 1, 1924, making its way in regular diet to reduce the incidence of goiter, iodized salt has also been found to play - The first modifying phrase 'First sold in May' is placed far away from Iodized salt.
E) First sold May 1, 1924, iodized salt has made its way in regular diet to reduce the incidence of goiter, also playing - Changes the intended meaning.

Regards,
Akash

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for replying so quickly!

Your answer is indeed very helpful, but I have two more questions here.

1. In option C, because there is no helping verb with 'sold', 'Iodized salt first sold...' still appears to me as a phrase.

Iodized salt cannot sell itself, that makes sold just a modifier doesn't it? If it is 'Iodized salt was first sold..' or 'Someone sold Iodized salt..', then it would have made more sense to me.

What am I missing here?

2. In option D, if the sentence was like this, would it be okay? - First sold May 1, 1924, Iodized salt, making its way in regular diet to reduce the incidence of goiter, has also been found to play..

Regards,
Akash

Could an expert please explain the error in Option E, please ?

Thanks!

Hi Andrew,

Ah I get it now. Thanks!!

Regards,
Akash