GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 20 Oct 2018, 04:19

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# The commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 175

### Show Tags

01 Aug 2014, 23:13
bsd_lover wrote:
The commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use of the word natural to foods that do not contain color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, or nothing that has been synthesized.

A. or nothing that has been

B. or that has been

C. and nothing that is

D. or anything that has been

E. and anything

D
2/3 split The choice b/w "or" and " and" , "or" should be correct here. ( Foods that contain one of those preservatives are not natural--> intended meaning). The choice b/w "nothing" and "anything", "anything" should be correct because it goes with "do not contain".
_________________

.........................................................................
+1 Kudos please, if you like my post

Manager
Status: Manager to Damager!
Affiliations: MBA
Joined: 22 May 2014
Posts: 68
Location: United States

### Show Tags

17 Sep 2014, 05:28
divineacclivity wrote:
metallicafan wrote:
+1 D

We need "or", not "and". The three items have not to be together. C and E out.
"Nothing" is not logical. The negation is already mentioned in "do not contain". With "nothing", we have a positive statement. (-)(-) = (+)

Hi,

That helps. One doubt:
Had E option been "or anything synthesized", would E be better than D (= or anything that has been synthesized) for concision?

thanks
Divine

I have the same concern..
Had E option been "or anything synthesized", would E be better than D (= or anything that has been synthesized) for concision?
Intern
Joined: 20 Dec 2014
Posts: 11

### Show Tags

16 Jan 2015, 11:59
we need or in the underlined sentence. C and E out. Also we need anything because the sentence is about food that DO NOT CONTAIN. Logically only D makes sense.

Best Choice: D

bsd_lover wrote:
The commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use of the word natural to foods that do not contain color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, or nothing that has been synthesized.

A. or nothing that has been

B. or that has been

C. and nothing that is

D. or anything that has been

E. and anything
Manager
Joined: 05 Jun 2012
Posts: 74
Schools: IIMA

### Show Tags

09 Feb 2015, 02:44
D is obvious choice !!! Parallelism is answer
_________________

If you are not over prepared then you are under prepared !!!

Retired Moderator
Joined: 19 Apr 2013
Posts: 605
Concentration: Strategy, Healthcare
Schools: Sloan '18 (A)
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V41
GPA: 4

### Show Tags

02 Mar 2015, 01:53
D is the right answer. Or must be used rather than and.
_________________

If my post was helpful, press Kudos. If not, then just press Kudos !!!

Retired Moderator
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1243
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40

### Show Tags

07 Jun 2015, 08:14
bsd_lover wrote:
The commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use of the word natural to foods that do not contain color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, or nothing that has been synthesized.

A. or nothing that has been

B. or that has been

C. and nothing that is

D. or anything that has been

E. and anything

I understand why D is correct but can't catch sense on this sentence.

We have healthy food without color, conservants or this food not synthesized and some commision forbid to call this food "natural".
So if I have natural corn for example and it does not contain color addition I can't call it "natural"
Why? What the point of this ban?
_________________
Intern
Joined: 26 Dec 2015
Posts: 10
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V39
GPA: 3.2

### Show Tags

02 Feb 2016, 02:36
MorningRunner wrote:
divineacclivity wrote:
metallicafan wrote:
+1 D

We need "or", not "and". The three items have not to be together. C and E out.
"Nothing" is not logical. The negation is already mentioned in "do not contain". With "nothing", we have a positive statement. (-)(-) = (+)

Hi,

That helps. One doubt:
Had E option been "or anything synthesized", would E be better than D (= or anything that has been synthesized) for concision?

thanks
Divine

I have the same concern..
Had E option been "or anything synthesized", would E be better than D (= or anything that has been synthesized) for concision?

Hi,
I have the same concern. "that has been" seems redundant and even after removing this part the parallelism is unaltered (noun+adjective).
Can we have a definitive reply on this one?
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3031
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)

### Show Tags

02 Feb 2016, 17:43
rajat311289 wrote:
MorningRunner wrote:
divineacclivity wrote:

I have the same concern..
Had E option been "or anything synthesized", would E be better than D (= or anything that has been synthesized) for concision?

Hi,
I have the same concern. "that has been" seems redundant and even after removing this part the parallelism is unaltered (noun+adjective).
Can we have a definitive reply on this one?

I shall try to help. Your point makes sense. "or anything" is more concise than "or anything that has been". The difference is as follows:

or anything synthesized: synthesized is an adjective for anything. .. the usage is grammatically correct.
or anything that has been synthesized: has been synthesized is a verb in present perfect tense passive voice.. the usage is also grammatically correct.

However it not expected that one would have to reject a wrong option only because of this kind of concision issues; there is generally another problem in a wrong option. Even if a wrong answer pops with only a concision issue, it is expected to be more severe than the that in the example you have considered.

Another point here: There are 3 parallel elements in this example : 1. colour/flavour additives, 2. chemical preservative, and 3. anything that has been synthesized. Since the first 2 elements are adjective+noun combination, it is probably better to use anything synthesized, adjective+noun combination, for the 3rd element as well.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3031
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)

### Show Tags

02 Feb 2016, 17:49
Harley1980 wrote:
bsd_lover wrote:
The commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use of the word natural to foods that do not contain color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, or nothing that has been synthesized.

A. or nothing that has been

B. or that has been

C. and nothing that is

D. or anything that has been

E. and anything

I understand why D is correct but can't catch sense on this sentence.

We have healthy food without color, conservants or this food not synthesized and some commision forbid to call this food "natural".
So if I have natural corn for example and it does not contain color addition I can't call it "natural"
Why? What the point of this ban?

Yes, I agree with you.. the sentence should have been:

The commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use of the word natural to foods that do not contain color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, or anything that has been synthesized.
Moderator
Joined: 22 Jun 2014
Posts: 1030
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT 1: 540 Q45 V20
GPA: 2.49
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)

### Show Tags

30 Apr 2016, 12:34
bsd_lover wrote:
The commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use of the word natural to foods that do not contain color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, or nothing that has been synthesized.

DO NOT CONTAIN
1) color
2) preservatives
here we need OR to complete the list because NOT is used.

A. or nothing that has been

B. or that has been (or WHAT has been synthesized)

C. and nothing that is

D. or anything that has been

E. and anything
_________________

---------------------------------------------------------------
Target - 720-740
http://gmatclub.com/forum/information-on-new-gmat-esr-report-beta-221111.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/list-of-one-year-full-time-mba-programs-222103.html

Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2016
Posts: 51

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2016, 04:52
Can anyone explain why do we need a prefect tense 'has' in D here? Had the 'E' option been "Or anything" would be correct? P
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3031
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2016, 13:16
1
jjindal wrote:
Can anyone explain why do we need a prefect tense 'has' in D here? Had the 'E' option been "Or anything" would be correct? P

Yes that would be correct. In that case "synthesized" would be a past participle acting as an adjective for "anything".

Why present perfect is a suitable option here: At the time of taking the decision whether to restrict, the action "synthesize" has been completed, but the effect of synthesis is still present, i.e. the decision whether to restrict still depends on the action "synthesize".

Nonetheless, a simple present would also be alright here, though the meaning would be slightly different.
Current Student
Joined: 24 Jul 2016
Posts: 82
Location: United States (MI)
GMAT 1: 730 Q51 V40
GPA: 3.6

### Show Tags

05 Aug 2016, 12:18
Got it correct. Yay . D is the right answer because when connected by 'or', the subject is always the noun closest to 'or' (before)
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 425

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2016, 15:36
The commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use of the word "natural" to foods that do not contain color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, or nothing that has been synthesized.

Are the three things ( color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, or nothing that has been synthesized) sign of "NATURAL".
Thanks...
_________________

“The heights by great men reached and kept were not attained in sudden flight but, they while their companions slept, they were toiling upwards in the night.”

Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3031
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2016, 09:57
2
iMyself wrote:
The commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use of the word "natural" to foods that do not contain color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, or nothing that has been synthesized.

Are the three things ( color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, or nothing that has been synthesized) sign of "NATURAL".
Thanks...

No they are not, but foods that DO NOT contain color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, or anything that has been synthesized are.
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 425

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2016, 12:22
sayantanc2k wrote:
iMyself wrote:
The commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use of the word "natural" to foods that do not contain color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, [b]or nothing that has been synthesized.[/b]

Are the three things ( color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, or nothing that has been synthesized) sign of "NATURAL".
Thanks...

No they are not, but foods that DO NOT contain color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, or anything that has been synthesized are.

That means: the word "natural" is LIMITED. If the food contains color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, or anything that has been synthesized, we can't use "natural" in those foods, right?
But, the main sentence says another meaning. 'Natural' is restricted to those foods that do not contain color or flavor additives, chemical blah blah blah..... .That means: if my food contains color or flavor, chemical preservatives, blah blah blah then 'natural' is NOT restricted-I'm allowed to use 'natural' in those foods. What do you think brother. Am I right?
Also, why or is used here. If someone used and here, will there be any problem in meaning?
Thanks...
_________________

“The heights by great men reached and kept were not attained in sudden flight but, they while their companions slept, they were toiling upwards in the night.”

Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3031
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2016, 08:40
iMyself wrote:
sayantanc2k wrote:
iMyself wrote:
The commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use of the word "natural" to foods that do not contain color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, [b]or nothing that has been synthesized.[/b]

Are the three things ( color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, or nothing that has been synthesized) sign of "NATURAL".
Thanks...

No they are not, but foods that DO NOT contain color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, or anything that has been synthesized are.

That means: the word "natural" is LIMITED. If the food contains color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, or anything that has been synthesized, we can't use "natural" in those foods, right?
But, the main sentence says another meaning. 'Natural' is restricted to those foods that do not contain color or flavor additives, chemical blah blah blah..... .That means: if my food contains color or flavor, chemical preservatives, blah blah blah then 'natural' is NOT restricted-I'm allowed to use 'natural' in those foods. What do you think brother. Am I right?
Also, why or is used here. If someone used and here, will there be any problem in meaning?
Thanks...

Brother, I am not sure what you mean by "if my food contains color or flavor, chemical preservatives, blah blah blah then 'natural' is NOT restricted-I'm allowed to use 'natural' in those foods." It seems that you have a wrong understanding of the sentence. The sentence means that the use of the word "natural" is restricted to only those foods that do not contain those certain items - i.e. if the food contains those items, then the word "natural" canNOT be used.

The reason that "and" cannot be used comes from the logical equations:

NOT (A and B) = NOT A or NOT B
NOT (A or B) = NOT A and NOT B

If the above is not clear, then let me explain in words.

The food that does not contain (X, Y AND Z)

The statement implies that the food may still contain (only X) or (only Y) or (only Z) or (any combination of two of them) - the only thing that the food must not contain is all the three items together. However this is not the intended meaning.
Manager
Joined: 17 Nov 2013
Posts: 101

### Show Tags

07 Oct 2016, 15:32
SPLIT1) "NOTHING" . YOU CANNOT USE THE WORD NOTHING BECAUSE IT IS A DOUBLE NEGATIVE. A AND C ARE OUT.

SPLIT2) IN B "OR THAT HAS BEEN" IS CHANGING THE MEANING OF THE SENTENCE TO REFER TO FOOD WHEN THE INTENTION OF THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE IS TO REFER TO THE ADDITIVES. B IS OUT.

SPLIT3) "AND ANYTHING" SIMILAR TO SPLIT2) IT CHANGES THE MEANING TO A MORE LOSE DEFINITION WHEN THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO ADDIVITIES. WHY? "AND" IMPLIES THAT IT TAKES ONLY THE ABSENCE OF THIS ITEM TO MAKE THE FOOD NATURAL....WHEN IN FACT WE KNOW THERE IS A LAUNDRY LIST OF ITEMS THAT CAN MAKE THE FOOD NOT NATURAL. "OR", ON THE OTHER HAND, IS MORE INCLUSIVE IMPLYING THERE IS A LIST OF ITEMS THAT WOULD MAKE THE FOOD NOT NATURAL.
Manager
Joined: 23 Dec 2013
Posts: 159
Location: United States (CA)
GMAT 1: 710 Q45 V41
GMAT 2: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.76

### Show Tags

14 May 2017, 10:31
bsd_lover wrote:
The commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use of the word natural to foods that do not contain color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, or nothing that has been synthesized.

A. or nothing that has been

B. or that has been

C. and nothing that is

D. or anything that has been

E. and anything

A "Do not contain" and "nothing" are double negatives.
B "That as been" is not parallel with the nouns in the list.
C "Do not contain" and "nothing" are double negatives.
D Correct.
E "And" illogically implies that all the conditions must be satisfied, when in fact only one of the three conditions must be met to restrict the use of the word "natural."
Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4479
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)

### Show Tags

14 May 2017, 11:40
Top Contributor
The correct way to parse this sentence is this way: The commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use of the word natural to foods that do not contain (A. color or flavor additives, (or) B. chemical preservatives, or C anything that has been synthesized.)
You can see now why anything that has been synthesized is gelling with the rest of the list. The text implies that even if one of the items is found to be used in the food, that food can't be marked as natural. This invalidates the use of 'and' in the choice.
_________________

you can know a lot about something and not really understand it."-- a quote
No one knows this better than a GMAT student does.
Narendran +9198845 44509

Re: The commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use &nbs [#permalink] 14 May 2017, 11:40

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 41 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by