Learn Hardcore Swedish: Hon tycker att maten blir godare med mer salt. - She thinks the food becomes tastier with more salt.

tycker = to think/hold an opinion. Example: Hon tycker att maten blir godare.
tycker om = to like. Example: Hon tycker om salt. (She likes salt.)
tror = to believe (assume/guess, without strong evidence). Example: Hon tror att det ska regna.
tänker = to plan/mean/intend or to be in the process of thinking. Example: Hon tänker salta maten. (She plans to salt the food.)

Why is att used here? Is it the same “att” as the infinitive “to”?

Here, att is a complementizer meaning “that,” introducing the clause att maten blir godare. It’s not the infinitive marker. Swedish uses the same word att for both functions, but they’re different roles:

Complementizer: Hon tycker att maten blir godare.
Infinitive marker: Hon vill att is wrong; you’d say Hon vill äta (She wants to eat), where att before the verb is optional in modern Swedish: att äta / äta.

Can att be dropped in this sentence?

In everyday speech, Swedes often drop it after verbs of saying/thinking:

Hon tycker maten blir godare med mer salt. In careful writing, keep att.

Why is it maten blir and not blir maten? Isn’t Swedish V2?

Main clauses are V2, but subordinate clauses (like those after att) are not:

Main clause V2: Maten blir godare. / Med mer salt blir maten godare.
Subordinate clause: Hon tycker att maten blir godare (subject before the verb). With negation in a subclause, sentence adverbs go after the subject but before the verb:
Hon tycker att maten inte blir godare.

Why is it maten (definite) and not just mat (indefinite)?

maten = “the food” (a specific dish/meal currently being discussed).
mat is a mass noun meaning “food” in general. You’d use it for general statements: Mat blir godare med salt sounds too generic or odd here; you’d normally say Mat smakar ofta bättre med salt if you truly mean food in general. In this sentence, maten points to a particular dish.

Why use blir (“becomes/gets”) instead of är (“is”)?

blir highlights change/result: the food gets tastier as a result of adding salt.
är states a static relation/condition: Hon tycker att maten är godare med mer salt = She thinks the food is tastier when there’s more salt (less focus on the change). Both are possible; blir is more dynamic here.

Could I use smakar instead of blir?

Yes:

Maten smakar godare med mer salt. (understood and fine)
Many would also say: Maten smakar bättre med mer salt. For positive degree: Maten smakar gott.

How is the comparative godare formed, and what are the related forms?

Positive: god (en-words), gott (ett-words or as an adverb/predicative), goda (definite/plural attributive).
Comparative: godare (one form, no gender/number endings in predicative use).
Superlative: godast (predicative) / den godaste (attributive definite). Examples:
Maten är god.
Vattnet är gott.
Den goda maten.
Maten blir godare.
Det godaste brödet.

Why not goda here (Maten blir goda)?

Because goda is the definite/plural attributive form of the positive degree (used before nouns: den goda maten). After a verb, you use predicative forms:

Positive: Maten är god.
Comparative: Maten blir godare. So goda would be ungrammatical here.

Why mer salt and not fler salt?

mer is used with uncountable/mass nouns (salt, vatten, ris): mer salt.
fler is used with countable plural items: fler ägg, fler tomater.

Is there any difference between mer and mera?

Both mean “more.” mer is the standard modern form; mera can sound a bit more old-fashioned or dialectal but is still acceptable: mer salt / mera salt.

Why use med (“with”) instead of av (“from/because of”)?

med indicates accompaniment/instrument/added ingredient: Maten blir godare med mer salt (tastier with more salt added).
av often signals cause or result: Maten blir oätlig av för mycket salt (inedible because of too much salt).

Can I front the phrase med mer salt?

In a main clause: yes. Med mer salt blir maten godare.
Inside an att-clause, fronting is much less natural; you typically keep it as att maten blir godare med mer salt.

Could I replace maten with det in the clause?

Yes, to generalize or avoid repeating a specific noun:

Hon tycker att det blir godare med mer salt. Here det is a dummy/impersonal subject meaning “it/that/this (situation).” With maten, you’re talking about a specific dish.

Where would other sentence adverbs go in the subclause?

In att-clauses: Subject + sentence adverb + finite verb.

Hon tycker att maten verkligen blir godare.
Hon tycker att maten nog blir godare.
Hon tycker att maten tyvärr inte blir godare.

What are the principal forms of tycker and blir?

tycker (present), tyckte (past), tyckt (supine/past participle): Hon har tyckt...
blir (present), blev (past), blivit (supine): Maten har blivit godare.