BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

And & Or - Question from OG

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:58 am
Thanked: 3 times

And & Or - Question from OG

by svishal1123 » Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:41 pm
Hi Folks, I am confused with this question from OG.

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.

Choices A B C were clearly wrong.

D or anything that has been
E and anything

I chose E because of And. OA D
My reasoning was that the "natural" word should be restricted to foods that do not contain any of the above. In other words, if any of the substances above is present then the word natural should not be used.
If "or" is used, it would mean that if either of the above is not present then the word natural can be used no matter other 2 substances are present.

Can somebody please help me clear my thinking.

I would have used OR if the sentence were of the structure below:

"natural" should NOT be used if it contains A or B or C
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:12 pm
Thanked: 2 times

by matterover » Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:57 pm
Check this example
To avoid fat, stay away from fatty foods that contain high carbs (OR / AND ) sugars.
while it is true that AND is the replacement but OR suits best..
because by restricting to AND you are saying that you should stay away from foods that have high carbs and high sugars, but, foods only with high carbs OR foods with high sugars are okay ..See the problem.


word "natural" to foods that do not contain color or flavor additives, chemical preservatives, or nothing that has been synthesized.

In the following question, by using AND we restrict the word "natural" to certain foods that DO NOT CONTAIN ALL --> flavor additives AND chemical preservatives AND anything that has been synthsized, while
food that CONTAIN only flavour additives, only chemical preservatis , only has been synthesized will be 'natural;.

This is a parallel structure where we are talking about certain attributes.

Apple is red, round, shiny and tasty...

Hence the word applies to EACH by default.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:35 pm
Thanked: 56 times

by raunekk » Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:11 pm
nice question... i m equally confused!!!

anyone...
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:52 pm
Thanked: 1 times

Re: And & Or - Question from OG

by sudeep_ar » Fri May 01, 2009 2:11 am
svishal1123 wrote:Hi Folks, I am confused with this question from OG.

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.

Choices A B C were clearly wrong.

D or anything that has been
E and anything

I chose E because of And. OA D
My reasoning was that the "natural" word should be restricted to foods that do not contain any of the above. In other words, if any of the substances above is present then the word natural should not be used.
If "or" is used, it would mean that if either of the above is not present then the word natural can be used no matter other 2 substances are present.

Can somebody please help me clear my thinking.

I would have used OR if the sentence were of the structure below:

"natural" should NOT be used if it contains A or B or C

Object is A if it is not X, Y and Z.
It implies that the Object is A if Object is not (X,Y,and Z - all together). If Object is not any of them then it is A.
If Object is X and Z still it is A.

so read it like
Object is A if it is not (...)

(...) is X, Y and Z
which means three of them together

if (...) is X, Y or Z
which means any of the three,

so with 'or' we achieve the objective of the original sentence to imply that it should not be any of the three substance.
Object is A if it is not (.../any of the three)


I hope it clears
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:35 pm
Thanked: 56 times

by raunekk » Fri May 01, 2009 8:33 am
what difference does that make to the meaning...???
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 8:57 pm
Thanked: 2 times

by divineacclivity » Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:17 pm
sudeep_ar wrote:
svishal1123 wrote:Hi Folks, I am confused with this question from OG.

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.

Choices A B C were clearly wrong.

D or anything that has been
E and anything

I chose E because of And. OA D
My reasoning was that the "natural" word should be restricted to foods that do not contain any of the above. In other words, if any of the substances above is present then the word natural should not be used.
If "or" is used, it would mean that if either of the above is not present then the word natural can be used no matter other 2 substances are present.

Can somebody please help me clear my thinking.

I would have used OR if the sentence were of the structure below:

"natural" should NOT be used if it contains A or B or C

Object is A if it is not X, Y and Z.
It implies that the Object is A if Object is not (X,Y,and Z - all together). If Object is not any of them then it is A.
If Object is X and Z still it is A.

so read it like
Object is A if it is not (...)

(...) is X, Y and Z
which means three of them together

if (...) is X, Y or Z
which means any of the three,

so with 'or' we achieve the objective of the original sentence to imply that it should not be any of the three substance.
Object is A if it is not (.../any of the three)


I hope it clears


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
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:58 pm
Followed by:1 members

by Pleaman » Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:07 pm
svishal1123 wrote:Hi Folks, I am confused with this question from OG.

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.

Choices A B C were clearly wrong.

D or anything that has been
E and anything

I chose E because of And. OA D
My reasoning was that the "natural" word should be restricted to foods that do not contain any of the above. In other words, if any of the substances above is present then the word natural should not be used.
If "or" is used, it would mean that if either of the above is not present then the word natural can be used no matter other 2 substances are present.

Can somebody please help me clear my thinking.

I would have used OR if the sentence were of the structure below:

"natural" should NOT be used if it contains A or B or C
Sorry, but I can not understand. The statement says that if foods DO NOT contain (include) color...etc, then advertisers are restricted to use the word "natural". How it could be?
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Fri Dec 28, 2012 6:33 pm
Pleaman wrote:
Sorry, but I can not understand. The statement says that if foods DO NOT contain (include) color...etc, then advertisers are restricted to use the word "natural". How it could be?
Check my posts here:

https://www.beatthegmat.com/and-vs-or-in ... 75745.html

https://www.beatthegmat.com/knewton-expe ... 77763.html
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:58 pm
Followed by:1 members

by Pleaman » Sat Dec 29, 2012 1:17 am
GMATGuruNY wrote:
Pleaman wrote:
Sorry, but I can not understand. The statement says that if foods DO NOT contain (include) color...etc, then advertisers are restricted to use the word "natural". How it could be?
Check my posts here:

https://www.beatthegmat.com/and-vs-or-in ... 75745.html

https://www.beatthegmat.com/knewton-expe ... 77763.html
Thanks, but my question not about using @or@ or @and@, but about main clause.
To detail my question, I made this sentence shorter. See below.

The commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use of the word "natural" to foods that DO NOT contain color or flavor additives.

Do I understand correctly the meaning of this sentence that if foods DO NOT contain (include) flavor additives, then advertisers are restricted to use the word "natural", but if DO contain them, then advertisers aren't restricted? It's look like a mistake to use @NOT@ near @contain@.

I believe here that @Contain@ = include, NOT restrain. Right?
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Sun Jan 06, 2013 6:08 am
Pleaman wrote: The commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use of the word "natural" to foods that DO NOT contain flavor additives.

Do I understand correctly the meaning of this sentence that if foods DO NOT contain (include) flavor additives, then advertisers are restricted to use the word "natural", but if DO contain them, then advertisers aren't restricted? It's look like a mistake to use @NOT@ near @contain@.

I believe here that @Contain@ = include, NOT restrain. Right?
Here, the use of the word "natural" is RESTRICTED.
Only foods THAT DO NOT CONTAIN FLAVOR ADDITIVES can be called "natural".
Put another way, foods that DO contain flavor additives CANNOT be called "natural".
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:58 pm
Followed by:1 members

by Pleaman » Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:13 am
GMATGuruNY wrote:
Pleaman wrote: The commission has directed advertisers to restrict the use of the word "natural" to foods that DO NOT contain flavor additives.

Do I understand correctly the meaning of this sentence that if foods DO NOT contain (include) flavor additives, then advertisers are restricted to use the word "natural", but if DO contain them, then advertisers aren't restricted? It's look like a mistake to use @NOT@ near @contain@.

I believe here that @Contain@ = include, NOT restrain. Right?
Here, the use of the word "natural" is RESTRICTED.
Only foods THAT DO NOT CONTAIN FLAVOR ADDITIVES can be called "natural".
Put another way, foods that DO contain flavor additives CANNOT be called "natural".
I see, what you are talking about. But I cannot understand why the sentence declares the contrary. The sentence says that the word "natural" is RESTRICTED to foods that DO NOT contain flavor additives and therefore foods CAN NOT be called "natural".
My wife suggests another meaning of this sentence. She says that it is not enough to use the word "natural" even if foods DO NOT CONTAIN FLAVOR ADDITIVES. Сould this be the intended meaning of the sentence?
Thanks in advance.
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:05 am

by AsadAbu » Wed Aug 31, 2016 2:15 pm
GMATGuruNY wrote: Here, the use of the word "natural" is RESTRICTED.
Only foods THAT DO NOT CONTAIN FLAVOR ADDITIVES can be called "natural".
Put another way, foods that DO contain flavor additives CANNOT be called "natural".


Hi, your writing makes me confused-you're explaining something opposite way. The BOLD word does not make me sense, at least to me.
Here, the first BOLD should be UNNATURAL and the second BOLD word should be CAN
Please help me. I'm getting confused when i read your sentence.
Thanks...
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Wed Aug 31, 2016 2:35 pm
iMyself wrote:
GMATGuruNY wrote: Here, the use of the word "natural" is RESTRICTED.
Only foods THAT DO NOT CONTAIN FLAVOR ADDITIVES can be called "natural".
Put another way, foods that DO contain flavor additives CANNOT be called "natural".


Hi, your writing makes me confused-you're explaining something opposite way. The BOLD word does not make me sense, at least to me.
Here, the first BOLD should be UNNATURAL and the second BOLD word should be CAN
Please help me. I'm getting confused when i read your sentence.
Thanks...
natural and additives are OPPOSITES.
If a food is natural, then it does not contain additives.
If a food contains additives, then it is not natural.
Thus:
A food can be called "natural" only if does not contain additives.
A food that contains additives cannot be called "natural."
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:05 am

by AsadAbu » Thu Sep 01, 2016 11:32 am
GMATGuruNY wrote:
iMyself wrote:
GMATGuruNY wrote: Here, the use of the word "natural" is RESTRICTED.
Only foods THAT DO NOT CONTAIN FLAVOR ADDITIVES can be called "natural".
Put another way, foods that DO contain flavor additives CANNOT be called "natural".


Hi, your writing makes me confused-you're explaining something opposite way. The BOLD word does not make me sense, at least to me.
Here, the first BOLD should be UNNATURAL and the second BOLD word should be CAN
Please help me. I'm getting confused when i read your sentence.
Thanks...
natural and additives are OPPOSITES.
If a food is natural, then it does not contain additives.
If a food contains additives, then it is not natural.
Thus:
A food can be called "natural" only if does not contain additives.
A food that contains additives cannot be called "natural."
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.

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. Am I right?

Also, why OR is used here. If someone used AND here, will there be any problem in meaning?
Thanks...
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Sun Sep 11, 2016 3:36 am
iMyself wrote: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. Am I right?
You are suggesting a meaning that is nonsensical.
Clearly, a food that contains chemical preservatives CANNOT be considered "natural."
OA: 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.
Conveyed meaning:
The use of the word "natural" is restricted.
This word may be used only for foods that satisfy the following conditions:
They do not contain color additives.
They do not contain flavor additives.
They do not contain chemical preservatives.
They do not contain anything that has been synthesized.
Also, why OR is used here. If someone used AND here, will there be any problem in meaning?
Case 1: The film does not feature John AND Mary.
Conveyed meaning:
It's possible that the film features John but not Mary.
It's possible that the film features Mary but not John.
But the film does not feature both John AND Mary.

Case 2: The film does not feature John OR Mary.
Conveyed meaning:
The film does not feature John.
The film does not feature Mary.

The likelihood that Case 1 will appear in an OA is very small.
On the GMAT, not X and Y is almost certain to be incorrect.
Correct: not X OR Y.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
Post new topic Locked
• Page 1 of 1