|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
11 Sep 2021, 21:05
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
68% (01:32) correct
32%
(01:28)
wrong
based on 307
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Following the nutrition board’s advice on salt consumption would mean a virtual end of the use of salt in cooking, an avoidance of obviously salty foods, and reducing the reliance on processed foods that contain significant amounts of often hidden sodium.
A) reducing the reliance on processed foods that contain significant amounts of often hidden sodium
B) reducing the reliance on processed foods containing often hidden but significant amounts of sodium
C) a reduction of the reliance on processed foods, containing as they do often hidden sodium in significant amounts
D) a reduced reliance on the significant amounts of hidden sodium often contained in processed foods
E) a reduced reliance on processed foods that contain significant but often hidden amounts of sodium
11 Sep 2021, 21:08
Kudos
Bookmarks
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
THE PROMPT
• Issues tested?
→ Parallelism
If the nutrition board's advice about consuming less salt were followed, three things would happen.
Those three things need to be described in parallel terms.
The two events in the nonunderlined portion are noun phrases:
1) a virtual end to the use of salt in cooking, and
2) an avoidance of obviously salty foods
The third event should also be a noun phrase.
→ modifiers and meaning (see option D)
THE PROMPT
→ reducing (a gerund, a verbING word) is not parallel to the other nouns (a virtual end . . . an avoidance . . .) in the non-underlined portion
→ reducing the reliance on should be a reduced reliance on
ELIMINATE A
→ exactly the same problem as that in option A
• possibly strange use of the conjunction but that does not sound very logical
I suspect that the significant amounts of sodium are hidden because they are significant, not in spite of that fact.
The meaning is ambiguous.
1) (intended) Although you cannot detect the amounts of sodium because they are hidden, those hidden amounts are significant.
2) (unintended) Despite the fact that the amounts of sodium are hidden, they are significant.
This potential ambiguity is not enough to eliminate this option. I just want you to see what little rearrangements can do. (Compare the arrangements in options A and B.) You could use this hiccup as a tiebreaker. But the parallelism error is fatal.
ELIMINATE B
→ a reduction of the reliance on processed foods, [modifying clause] is not precisely parallel with the other items, which simply contain [a/an] + [noun] + [preposition] ...
-- a virtual end of the use of salt in cooking ← ← this noun phrase is all in one piece
-- a reduction of the reliance on processed foods, containing as they do often hidden sodium in significant amounts ← ← this structure is a noun phrase followed by a participle modifier that is rare on the GMAT.
Participle modifiers of preceding nouns are almost never preceded by a comma.
That is, 99 percent of the time, GMAC does not allow comma + present participle to modify the immediately preceding word.
Rather, comma + present participle modifies the preceding clause.
I know of exactly one exception to this custom. (I do believe that the exception signals at least the beginning of a shift, i.e. that GMAC may soon allow more participle modifiers of immediately preceding nouns to be set off by a comma.)
In the "Holland Tunnel" official question, which you can read by clicking here, comma + participle arguably modifies the immediately preceding noun.
That official question still creates confusion.
• the modifying clause is problematic
→ The construction "containing as they do" is sloppy, awkward, and verbose:
-- containing should be which contain, and
-- the words as they do are utterly unnecessary.
• the whole sentence lacks concision
→ compare the phrase in this option, a reduction of the reliance on, with the phrase in option E, a reduced reliance on.
The whole last part is unwieldy and stylistically sub-par.
This option may be our best. No clear-cut error exists.
KEEP, but look for a better answer
• the meaning is silly
→ This option suggests that the reduced reliance is on the significant amounts of hidden sodium rather than on processed foods (that contain hidden sodium).
ELIMINATE D
→ the third element is parallel with the other two. It's a noun phrase.
→ the noun modifier is a that-clause properly attached to its noun without a pesky comma + verbING construction
→ this option uses fewer words to say exactly the same thing as Option C does.
Concision is a thing.
KEEP
The best answer is E.
COMMENTS
This question is a good reminder to compare options when clear error is not jumping out at you.
Posters, you have all done well. Kudos to all.
Project SC Butler: Sentence Correction (SC2)
THE PROMPT
Quote:
• Issues tested?
→ Parallelism
If the nutrition board's advice about consuming less salt were followed, three things would happen.
Those three things need to be described in parallel terms.
The two events in the nonunderlined portion are noun phrases:
1) a virtual end to the use of salt in cooking, and
2) an avoidance of obviously salty foods
The third event should also be a noun phrase.
→ modifiers and meaning (see option D)
THE PROMPT
Quote:
• not parallel
→ reducing (a gerund, a verbING word) is not parallel to the other nouns (a virtual end . . . an avoidance . . .) in the non-underlined portion
→ reducing the reliance on should be a reduced reliance on
ELIMINATE A
Quote:
• not parallel
→ exactly the same problem as that in option A
• possibly strange use of the conjunction but that does not sound very logical
I suspect that the significant amounts of sodium are hidden because they are significant, not in spite of that fact.
The meaning is ambiguous.
1) (intended) Although you cannot detect the amounts of sodium because they are hidden, those hidden amounts are significant.
2) (unintended) Despite the fact that the amounts of sodium are hidden, they are significant.
This potential ambiguity is not enough to eliminate this option. I just want you to see what little rearrangements can do. (Compare the arrangements in options A and B.) You could use this hiccup as a tiebreaker. But the parallelism error is fatal.
ELIMINATE B
Quote:
• somewhat parallel, but the construction is strange and very rare on the GMAT
→ a reduction of the reliance on processed foods, [modifying clause] is not precisely parallel with the other items, which simply contain [a/an] + [noun] + [preposition] ...
-- a virtual end of the use of salt in cooking ← ← this noun phrase is all in one piece
-- a reduction of the reliance on processed foods, containing as they do often hidden sodium in significant amounts ← ← this structure is a noun phrase followed by a participle modifier that is rare on the GMAT.
Participle modifiers of preceding nouns are almost never preceded by a comma.
That is, 99 percent of the time, GMAC does not allow comma + present participle to modify the immediately preceding word.
Rather, comma + present participle modifies the preceding clause.
I know of exactly one exception to this custom. (I do believe that the exception signals at least the beginning of a shift, i.e. that GMAC may soon allow more participle modifiers of immediately preceding nouns to be set off by a comma.)
In the "Holland Tunnel" official question, which you can read by clicking here, comma + participle arguably modifies the immediately preceding noun.
That official question still creates confusion.
• the modifying clause is problematic
→ The construction "containing as they do" is sloppy, awkward, and verbose:
-- containing should be which contain, and
-- the words as they do are utterly unnecessary.
• the whole sentence lacks concision
→ compare the phrase in this option, a reduction of the reliance on, with the phrase in option E, a reduced reliance on.
The whole last part is unwieldy and stylistically sub-par.
This option may be our best. No clear-cut error exists.
KEEP, but look for a better answer
Quote:
• the meaning is silly
→ This option suggests that the reduced reliance is on the significant amounts of hidden sodium rather than on processed foods (that contain hidden sodium).
ELIMINATE D
Quote:
• much better than option C (eliminate option C)
→ the third element is parallel with the other two. It's a noun phrase.
→ the noun modifier is a that-clause properly attached to its noun without a pesky comma + verbING construction
→ this option uses fewer words to say exactly the same thing as Option C does.
Concision is a thing.
KEEP
The best answer is E.
COMMENTS
This question is a good reminder to compare options when clear error is not jumping out at you.
Posters, you have all done well. Kudos to all.
11 Sep 2021, 21:25
Kudos
Bookmarks
My answer is (E). It took me 01:45.
Need for parallelism: In "a virtual end of X, Y, and Z".
X = the use of salt in cooking
Y = an avoidance of obviously salty foods
We expect C to be "Article (the or a/an) + Noun".
Eliminate (A) and (B) as it is not parallel.
(C) "containing as they do" is not properly constructed.
Between (D) and (E), the object of "reliance on“ should be "processed foods" rather than "the significant amounts".
Reject (D) and choose (E).
Need for parallelism: In "a virtual end of X, Y, and Z".
X = the use of salt in cooking
Y = an avoidance of obviously salty foods
We expect C to be "Article (the or a/an) + Noun".
Eliminate (A) and (B) as it is not parallel.
(C) "containing as they do" is not properly constructed.
Between (D) and (E), the object of "reliance on“ should be "processed foods" rather than "the significant amounts".
Reject (D) and choose (E).
