Economic Major Shifts

[Viswanathan.harsha]

Often major economic shifts are so gradual as to be indistinguishable at first from ordinary fluctuations in financial markets.

A. same
B. so gradual so that they can be indistinguishable
C. so gradual that they are unable to be distinguished
D. gradual enough not to be distinguishable
E. gradual enough so that one cannot distinguish them



OA A

I chose C, isn't So X that Y idiomatic as well? I know So and as is correct, but I had trouble choosing between A and C. Can someone please explain what other problems are with C for learning purposes?

[abhishekirani]

they are unable to distinguished

if it were unable to be distinguished then it would make sense.

[Viswanathan.harsha]

Sorry, that was a typo, it is supposed to be "unable to be distinguished"

[Viswanathan.harsha]

Ron,

Can you please explain why C is incorrect?

[mschwrtz]

It would be hard to use X is unable to be Y-ed correctly.

The passive voice and the past participle suggest that something is done (or not done) to X. But the able/unable suggest that X does (or does not) do something. Too abstract? OK, let's get down to the case at hand. Here's the wrong answer you asked about.

Often major economic shifts are so gradual that they are unable to be distinguished at first from ordinary fluctuations in financial markets.

This suggests that being distinguished from ordinary fluctuations is something major economic shifts are unable to do. But major economic shifts aren't doing or failing to do anything whatsoever.

Could you ever be un/able to have something done to you? How about this sentence describing a dancer who is able to follow her partners lead.

The dancer is able to be led.

Eh, maybe. Being led is plausibly grammatically passive, while also a real ability. Kind of an ugly sentence though. I'd prefer

The dancer is able to follow a lead.

Notice that though the passive voice is wrong, as it usually is wrong, it's wrong for a reason. No such reason? Not wrong.

[ravikumar.sv1985]

Hello Tutors

First of all, tons of thanks for your help.

I am having a hard time eliminating option D.
Does gradual enough not to X change the meaning of the original question? if so could you explain how it differs in meaning from original question?

Regards,
Ravi Kumar

[tim]

i think the bigger issue here is that "enough" usually means that something has a sufficient amount of a property that it can achieve some goal that was otherwise unattainable. for instance, perhaps i am tall enough to reach the ceiling. if i weren't tall enough, i could not reach the ceiling..

we start to have trouble when using "not" with "enough". although it makes sense to say that i am tall enough to reach the ceiling, it's much trickier to assert that i am short enough NOT to reach the ceiling. there are lots of ways i could avoid reaching the ceiling without having to be short..

the takeaway here is that you should be wary of a construction that combines "enough" with "not" in this way..

[thanghnvn]

Thank you Ron, Manhantan experts. I understand why the "shifts" can not " be unable" and C is wrong.

I want to ask you another thing.

normally, "so adjective that" is prefered than "so adjective as to" because there is a quetion from og

In 1527 King Henry VII sought to have his marriage to Queen Catherine annulled so as to marry Anne Boleyn.

A.
B. and so could be married to
C. to be married to
D. so that he could marry to
E. in order that he would marry to
oa is D.

is my thinking correct? above questin is discussed in this forum.

[tim]

yes