AkashM
Hi Andrew
MentorTutoring,
Could you please validate my line of reasoning here.
Hello, Akash. I will offer my thoughts below.
AkashM
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.
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.
AkashM
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.
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.
AkashM
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.
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.
AkashM
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.
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.
AkashM
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.
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