The commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use of the wor

Hi, Could anyone help me with this? I wonder if answer "or anything" would be correct here? I supposed yes, it is

foods that do not contain X or Y, Z and W. Why can't these three things be parallel and hence make E as the answer?
_________________

• Meaning: If a food satisfies any one of the disqualifying conditions, it cannot be called natural.

If a food contains color or flavor additives, it cannot be called natural. (That fact alone disqualifies the food.)
If a food contains chemical preservatives, that fact alone disqualifies the food from being called natural.
Finally, if a food contains a component that has been synthesized, that fact alone disqualifies the food from being called natural.

Obviously, if a food satisfies two conditions or all three conditions, it cannot be called natural.

The conjunction OR makes the disqualifying conditions separate from one another.

If we use "and," only foods that satisfy all three conditions are disqualified.

OR equals more possibilities:

You may not drive for a month if you run a red light, text while driving, or speed in a school zone.
(If I do any one of those things, I cannot drive for a month.)

AND equals fewer possibilities:
You may not drive for a month if you run a red light, text while driving, and speed in a school zone.
(I cannot drive for a month only if I do all three things. There will not be many times that I do not drive for a month.)

A proper Christmas candle must be red, green, or white.
A red candle is proper. A green candle is proper. A white candle is proper.
The pool of candles is fairly large.

A proper Christmas candle must be red, green, and white.
Now a proper candle contains all three colors. The pool of proper candles just got a lot smaller.

Eliminate easier errors first.

• Split #1: Subject/verb agreement

THe word "foods" is plural.
Correct: Foods that do not contain . . . or that HAVE been synthesized . . .
Option B, Wrong: Foods that do not contain . . . or that has been synthesized.

Eliminate B

• Split #2: Double negatives are ungrammatical

Wrong: For a week, do not eat cakes, candies, or nothing with added sugar.
Correct: For a week, do not eat cakes, candies, or anything with added sugar.

Options A and C contain "nothing" and thus create ungrammatical double negatives.
Option A:
Advertisers must 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.
Option C:
Advertisers must restrict the use of the word "natural" to foods that do not contain color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, and nothing that has been synthesized.

Eliminate A and C

• Split #3: LOGIC

D) or anything that has been [synthesized]
E) and anything [synthesized]

The use of and in Option E changes the logical intent of the commission.
AND means "all the conditions."
In (E), only when a food meets all three criteria is it disqualified from being called "natural."

(See the similar example in the footnote.)

The situation in E is not logical.
The commission is trying to stop people from being misled by inaccurate labels.
Why would it allow a food to be called "natural" if that food contained artificial colors and chemical preservatives but nothing that had been synthesized?
The commission would not allow that food to be called "natural."
Any one condition disqualifies a food from being called natural, but the word AND does not convey that fact.

The OG states, "Anything should be used instead of nothing. Logically, a natural food cannot contain any prohibited ingredient, so the list of prohibited ingredients must be connected by or."

Eliminate E

The correct answer is (D).


**• An animal cannot be called a giraffe if it is an egg-layer, short, OR cold-blooded.
If an animal is an egg-layer, it cannot be called a giraffe.
If an animal is short, it cannot be called a giraffe.
If an animal is cold-blooded, it cannot be called a giraffe.

If an animal is any one of those three things, it cannot be called a giraffe.
Many animals cannot be called "giraffe."

• An animal cannot be called a giraffe if it is an egg-layer, short, AND cold-blooded.
The meaning changed.
Now, the only time an animal cannot be called "giraffe" is when the animal is an egg-layer AND short AND cold-blooded,
_________________

icandoit1995 , yes, "or anything [subsidized]" would be correct.

You would not see that answer and option D in the same question.

Belated welcome to GMAT Club. I hope that answer helps.
_________________

TheNightKing , see my post above, HERE.

I cannot decide whether you are confused about parallelism or about AND.

Your construction is understandable but not correct.
You are missing an Oxford comma before Z. I have never seen a correct GMAC question without an Oxford comma.
Better: foods that do not contain X1 or X2, Y, or Z.

In addition, we can highlight the nouns.

The commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use of the word "natural" to foods that do not contain additives that enhance color or flavor, preservatives that are made from chemicals, or anything that has been synthesized.

Now let's dump the adjectives. And let's call "anything that has been synthesized" something else: synthetics.

Advertisers must restrict the use of the word "natural" to foods that do not contain additives, OR preservatives, OR synthetics.
If a food contains additives, it cannot be called natural.
If a different food contains preservatives, it also cannot be called natural.
If yet another food contains synthetics, it also cannot be called natural.

None of those three foods could be called "natural."
(If a food contained two of the three or three of the three prohibited substances, that food could not be called "natural.")


Those three things can be (and are) parallel.

They are all prohibited substances.

The problem is the word AND.

Use X1 or X2, Y, and Z. (I'm marking this in red because I do not want others to think that this construction is okay. It isn't.)

Those three items are parallel.
There are three nouns: additives (X1, X2), preservatives (Y), and things that have been synthesized (Z).
There are two kinds of additives, so you could use
foods that do not contain W, X, Y, and Z.

Does either list that uses AND make more sense than a list with OR?
If so, why? If you make an argument or ask a more specific question, I will be happy to try to help.

Hope that helps.
_________________

I am aware about the construction that we need a comma before Z. I would not call it typo and get it away with it. I will be more careful with it.



This example makes it very clear what is happening in the example. If we use "and" in place of "or" it changes the entire meaning and It will convey the meaning : the food that contains additives,preservatives, and synthetics will not be called natural. Not any one but all 3.

generis Thank you!
_________________

How come 'has been' doesn't break parallelism? we have 2 nouns followed by a clause in a list

(A) or nothing that has been
(1) double negative – “foods that do not contain…, nothing…”

(B) or that has been
(1) illogical structure/meaning – “the word ‘natural’ to foods THAT do not contain X, Y, …or THAT has been synthesized.”; this means the word “natural” would be used for food that has been synthesized. (2) SV agreement error – even if the logical meaning made sense in (1), there is a SV error: “…restrict the use of the word ‘natural’ to foods…THAT has been synthesized.” “foods” = plural; “has” = singular

(C) and nothing that is
(1) illogical meaning – “foods that do not contain…, and nothing…”?; (2) use of “and” – [“color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives and nothing that is synthesized”] is all one thing. Presumably, they want to say that they are all separate things and the food do not contain each one of them.

(D) or anything that has been
Correct answer – “foods that do not contain…flavor additives (a noun), chemical preservatives (a noun), or anything (noun) [THAT has been synthesized] (modifier of the previous noun - 'anything')”

(E) and anything
(1) use of “and” – [“color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives and anything synthesized”] is all one thing. Presumably, they want to say that they are all separate things and the food do not contain each one of them.

Wonderful explanation.

Cleared many doubts. Thanks again

Correct Option : D

Sentence Exam on:
- idioms (That X, Y, and That Z)
- Parallelism - List of conditions
- SV Agreement (List with usage of "OR" is singular, properly placed by "has"
- Anything (presence of....) vs Nothing (absence of...)

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 - rejected
(B) or that has been - that cannot modify "has"
(C) and nothing that is - use of ,and gives additional
(D) or anything that has been - correct
(E) and anything - ambiguity (anything of ??)

GMATNinja, can you please clarify why using ''and'' as it was done in E may not be aligned with the intended meaning of the sentence? What does it indicate in this sentence that ''or '' and not ''and'' should be used to express an intended meaning of the sentence?

Good question.

If we go with "and" (as in choice E), it implies that you can use the word "natural" as long as your food doesn't contain ALL THREE of those things. In other words, even if your food has one or two of those things, then you can still call it a "natural" food.

If we go with "or" (as in choice D), it implies that you can't use the word "natural" if your food has ANY of those three things. That makes a lot more sense -- if your food has, for example, chemical preservatives and a bunch of synthesized ingredients, then it probably shouldn't be called "natural," even if it does not contain color or flavor additives.

And if you aren't quite convinced, then you have one final clue in deciding between (D) and (E): the addition of "that has been" makes the meaning of "synthesized" a bit more specific and clear. Since (D) makes more sense and is a bit more clear, it's our winner.

I hope that helps!
_________________

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 and C contain a double negative in the flow

B would sound awkward if we reduced it down "...foods that do not contain that has been"

D has a good flow "...foods that do not contain anything that has been..."

E says that all things must be false for it to be natural. EX: Foods are natural if they contain only chemical preservatives.

GMATNinja, thank you for your response. Could you please provide more explanation on the following?
- Can you please provide additional guidance where I am getting wrong with my analysis below?
X, Y and Z--> I understand all three items must be present;
X, Y or Z--> As far as I understand, X+Y or Z must be present, but not all of them.

- Why that has been synthesized makes D more specific?

If we think of it in a programming perspective "do not contain color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, or anything that has been synthesized." would be phrased as "(!color || !flavor || !chemical || !synthesized) == natural" all conditions must be met for the food to be natural

Let's start with a simpler example:

"Tim will not eat the burrito if it contains (1) shrimp, (2) cilantro, or (3) mayonnaise."

It doesn't matter whether the burrito has only 1 of those things, only 2 of those things, or all 3 of those things. As long as the burrito has AT LEAST 1 of those things, Tim will not eat it.

We have a similar situation in (D). Here's a simplified version:

"Use the word 'natural' for foods that do not contain (1) flavor additives, (2) chemical preservatives, or (3) anything that has been synthesized."

It doesn't matter whether the food has 1 of those things, 2 of those things, or all 3 of those things. As long as the food has AT LEAST 1 of those things, we can't use the word "natural" to describe that food.

So we don't need (1) + (2) -- we just need (1), (2), or (3). Again, we need at least one of the three.


This is a subtle point and certainly not one that you should use to eliminate (E).

Let's say you have no idea what "synthesized" means, but you read "any food that has been synthesized." Because "synthesized" is part of a verb here, you at least get the sense that something was done to the food. This suggests that the foods underwent some process -- presumably some unnatural process.

While (E) might leave you completely guessing what the heck a "synthesized" food is, the verb in (D) helps guide the reader towards a logical meaning. Again, that is certainly NOT a reason to eliminate (E), but it's an extra little vote in favor of the option that's already looking much better than (E).

I hope that helps!
_________________

Looking forward to getting an expert reply on this. "Or" does not comply with the sentence structure since all the three items listed are necessities. Usage of "and" is clear since the commission does not want any of the three items of the food to be labelled as 'natural'

The way to look at it is that natural foods cannot contain either X or Y or Z.

In other words, even if one of these three items is present, the food will not qualify as "natural" food.
_________________

'and' is conjunctive so it combines things.
'or' is disjunctive so it separates them.

'... that do not contain A, B and C' - would normally mean they do not contain the three together.
'... that do not contain A, B or C' - would normally mean they do not contain any of these three.

Think about it:
Don't wear a red shirt and yellow trousers to my party. - means don't wear this combination
Don't wear a red shirt or yellow trousers to my party. - means don't wear either
_________________