It is possible that more than half of the babies in the wealthiest

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION



THE PROMPT

• Redundancy: After phrases or clauses that express possibility (It is possible that), do not use verbs that also convey possibility.
→ Doing so is redundant.

Correct: It is possible that XYZ will happen.
Correct: It is possible that XYZ has already happened.
Wrong: It is possible that XYZ could happen.
Wrong: It is possible that XYZ might happen.
Wrong: It is possible that XYZ may happen.

Correct: It is possible that I will not have to become an expatriate. (And I really hope that the election gets called on November 3.)

• IT is? What is this "it" doing? To what does the word refer?

→ The words It is possible are in the non-underlined portion and so are a non-issue.

That said, only one pronoun on the GMAT does not have to stand for what we think of as a "regular" noun (a person, place, or thing).
→ IT can refer to a that-clause: It is terrifying that the administration seeks to dismantle health care in the middle of a pandemic.
→ IT can refer to an infinitive clause: It is revolting to hear a leader accuse doctors and nurses of creating fake COVID cases for alleged financial gain.
→ IT can refer to a noun clause: It is impossible to know whether the American constitutional republic will survive.

THE OPTIONS

• redundant
It is possible and may both convey possibility. May should be will.

• redundant, confusing, and stylistically awful
→ greater and increasing? Redundant? Definitely repetitive.
→ what, exactly, does greater chances increasing mean?
Do the babies have greater chances of living to 100 because they are born in the wealthiest nations, "greater chances" that then increase if they are wealthy or slim?
(The United States, btw, ranks 33 of 36 in infant mortality among OECD countries.)
→ the phrasing is dreadful. Redundant and confusing are bad enough.
At the least, we can say that this phrasing is the worst of that in the five options.
Look at the way all of the options frame the idea, and because of course you have been reading 5-6 days a week, you will immediately notice that all the other options forgo this crappy phrase.

• reach to live is nonsensical. A person reaches 100 years old, lives to 100, reaches the age of 100, or lives to [be] 100 years old.
ELIMINATE A


• nothing is wrong with "100 years old." The difference between that phrase and "100" is a distraction.

• today's wealthiest nations' babies is too short, awkward, and confusing
→ using the possessive case is perfectly fine (so please don't argue that "today" cannot possess something), but in English, we typically do not use the possessive case back-to-back or more than once in a phrase that expresses one idea
→ on the other hand, the sentence is grammatical, and I do not eliminate questions on the basis of style on the first pass. Ever.
KEEP, but look for a better answer


• Option C is grammatical and
• better than option B
→ today's wealthiest nations' babies has been changed to babies in today's wealthiest nations
The phrasing in this option is less "squished"; the main noun (babies), appropriately keeps the focus because that noun is both set apart from and followed by a descriptive prepositional phrase

• "with greater chances" refers to the babies' extant (already existing) better odds because they are born in wealthy nations. If they are also wealthy or thin, the babies have even greater chances of living to 100.
KEEP C, eliminate B


• redundant, same problem as that in option A: It is possible and might both convey possibility. Might should be will.
• greater chances increasing is identical to the phrasing in option A (and identically bad) and is not as good as the phrasing in option C
• the sentence structure is poor. We must read half the sentence before we know what is under discussion.
→ It is contains a delayed antecedent in the form of a that-clause—but in this case, the antecedent is too delayed.
ELIMINATE D

• redundant: It is possible and may both convey possibility. May should be will.
• the phrase today's wealthiest nations' babies, as in option B, is awkward and confusing.
ELIMINATE E

The best answer is C.

COMMENTS

sonalgmat123 , welcome to SC Butler.

I like the interaction on the thread.
I respect questions, helpfulness, and the struggle to understand.

Just for the record: I watch time stamps.
If you answer before the OA is revealed, I am likely to give you more leeway.

My open invitation to aspirants still stands: if you have an answer, post it.

These explanations range from very good to outstanding.
The explanations use different approaches; as is common, the posts in this thread will make life easier for those who follow.