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

Hi vingmat001,

Why wait for the experts when we can solve it on our own.

Let’s first understand the structure and meaning of the sentence.


• The commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use of the word ‘natural’ to foods
o that do not contain
 color or flavor additives, (item-1)
 chemical preservatives (item-2)
 or nothing that has been synthesized. (item-3)


MEANING

• So, the sentence tells us that a certain commission has restricted the advertisers to use the word ‘natural’ for some specific type of foods.
o These are the foods that do not contain
1. Color or flavor additives
2. Chemical preservatives
3. Or anything that has been synthesized

Now, let’s move on to the options:


OPTION A

The given sentence has only one error. It says that the natural foods do not contain nothing that has been synthesized. The double negative (do not contain and nothing) invert the intended meaning of the sentence. So, this is incorrect.

1. People should not eat nothing that has high level of cholesterol.

2. People should not eat anything that has high level of cholesterol.


Which one of the above is correct? The second one. First one has double negatives that distort the meaning.


OPTION B

This option changes the sentence structure by removing ‘nothing’.

• The commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use of the word ‘natural’ to foods
o that do not contain
 color or flavor additives,
 chemical preservatives
o or that has been synthesized.


1. Now, the third item of the list is not parallel to the other two. In fact there is no third item in the list. There is no connector to connect the two items of the list ‘color or flavor additives’ and ‘chemical preservatives’.

2. This option makes the two clauses starting with ‘that’ parallel to each other. Now, the meaning becomes that natural foods are the ones that have been synthesized. This is illogical since synthesized foods can’t be natural.


OPTION C

1. This option has the same error as option A has. (nothing)

2. It also replaces the connector ‘or’ with ‘and’. This changes the meaning of the original sentence. Initially it meant that natural foods are the foods that do not have any of the three items listed in the list.

Now, it means that natural foods are the foods that don’t have all the listed items in them i.e. a food that contains one or two of the listed items can be a natural food.


OPTION D

This option corrects the only error from the original sentence.


OPTION E

This option has the same error as error no. 2 in option C.



Hope this helps!
Manyu

Hi Yavasani,

B is wrong because "foods" does not agree with "has" in number. we need "have" here.

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of this sentence is that the commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use of the word "natural" to foods that do not contain any of the following - color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, and anything that has been synthesized.

Concepts tested here: Meaning

A: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "nothing that has been synthesized"; the use of "nothing" alongside "do not" produces a double negative that illogically implies that the commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use of the word "natural" to foods that contain something that has been synthesized; the intended meaning is that the commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use of the word "natural" to foods that contain nothing that has been synthesized.

B: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "or that has been"; the construction of this phrase leads to an incoherent meaning, as there is no noun for the prepositional phrase "that has been synthesized" to act upon; the intended meaning is that the commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use of the word "natural" to foods that do not contain any of the following - color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, and anything that has been synthesized.

C: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "and nothing that is synthesized"; the use of and the use of "nothing" alongside "do not" (a double negative) illogically implies that the commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use of the word "natural" to foods that do not contain a combination of the following - color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, and something that has been synthesized; the intended meaning is that the commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use of the word "natural" to foods that do not contain any of the following - color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, and anything that has been synthesized.

D: Correct. This answer choice uses the phrase "or anything that has been synthesized"; this phrase uses the pronoun "anything", avoiding the double negative seen in Options A and C, provides the pronoun "anything" as a subject for the prepositional phrase "that has been synthesized" to act upon, and uses "or", conveying the intended meaning - that the commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use of the word "natural" to foods that do not contain any of the following - color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, and anything that has been synthesized.

E: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "and anything synthesized"; the use of "and" incorrectly implies that the commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use of the word "natural" to foods that do not contain a combination of the following - color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, and anything that has been synthesized; the intended meaning is that the commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use of the word "natural" to foods that do not contain any of the following - color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, and anything that has been synthesized.

Hence, D is the best answer choice.

All the best!
Experts' Global Team
_________________

____________________________
Guys, why is B wrong ?

I went with D here.
I believe "or" is correct. If you use "and", the food can be "neutral" if it has one of those three. I don't believe this is the intended meaning.

foods that do not contain X, Y, or Z. Eliminates C & E. Between B & D. My pick is B is for concision. I am not sure if D is gramatically incorrect.

Between A and D how does D win?

In short, how does double negative work here?

I can understand that it would be correct if the sentence is

The commission....foods that do not contain color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, or synthesized materials.

However, how does the not in 'foods that do NOT CONTAIN' act on 'or anything thet has been synthesized"?

'Or anything that has been synthesized' is not 'not contained' in the foods.

I have chosen the answer D in this case:

A. The use of the word "nothing" is incorrect. It seems to create a double negative, but we are suggesting that we don't want ingredients that have been synthesized, not the reverse.

B. It is confusing to me what the last "that" refers to. Also, if the last "that" refers to foods, then it should be "have been" and not "has been."

C. The use of the word "or" is correct because any of the 3 elements present in food would mean that the food is not natural. By using the word "and" we are saying that all 3 are required before the food is not natural. Also, "nothing" creates a double negative similar to answer choice A.

D. The use of the word "or" is correct in this case and the meaning of this answer choice makes sense.

E. "And" is used incorrectly here.

A) incorrectly uses "nothing", which makes the sentence a double negative given that the underline is preceded by "foods that do NOT contain".

B) "or that has been" improperly focuses on synthesized foods, which is not the intended meaning of the author. The intended meaning is that the CONTENTS of food should not be X, Y and Z..

C) Again with the double negative, WRONG

D) "anything" focuses on contents of food and not food in itself. Thus this is better than B (and correct). Also, notice that anything does not create an error with double negatives. CORRECT

E) Uses the word "anything" correctly but, just like B, focuses on foods and NOT contents of foods. Thus, wrong.


Also, (I didn't think of this when I answered, but I do now!) the initial and/or split is paramount; "and" breaks the parallelism of the sentence, "or" upholds it. So right off the bat you should eliminate all options that do not start with "or".

Alternatively, "and" creates an additional unwanted trait of food contents (that are added to the previously stated contents), which is not the intent of the author. The author doesn't mean to say that "foods that do NOT contain perservatives AND anything synthesized", rather "anything synthesized" needs to be its own "entity", thus and is wrong and or is correct.

I don't see any expert comments here. Request Verbal experts - Please reply.

D is correct answer - I get it. It sounds right too. Not awkward ...etc.
But meaning and grammar based analysis - I was only able to remove B. What about other choices - What are the incorrect?

Thanks Manyu!


Also found awesome e-GMAT explanation!

markers-in-parallelism-139076.html

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.

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.

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.

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.
_________________

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