MGMAT:- Dispute on one SC Q

[nrj.malhotra]

Hello,

I had the following SC Q in MGMAT:-
(underlined from 'of destroying' to 'so high as')
The category 1 to 5 rating known as the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale provides an estimate of a hurricane’s potential of destroying or damaging property, and is primarily determined from wind speed; a category 5 storm has wind speeds so high as to blow away small buildings, completely destroy mobile homes, and cause severe window and door damage.
A) of destroying or damaging property, and is primarily determined from wind speed; a category 5 storm has wind speeds so high as
B) to destroy or damage property, and is primarily determined from wind speed; a category 5 storm has wind speeds high enough
C) of destroying or damaging property, and is primarily determined by wind speed; a category 5 storm has wind speeds so high as
D) to destroy or damage property, and is primarily determined by wind speed; a category 5 storm has wind speeds high enough
E) to destroy or damage property, and is primarily determined by wind speed; a category 5 storm has wind speeds so high as

The answer to the Q was given as E, and the following explanation was offered:-

When referring to y as the potential outcome of x, the correct idiom is "x’s potential to y." This sentence incorrectly phrases the idiom as "a hurricane’s potential of destroying or damaging." When referring to the use of y to determine x, the correct idiom is "x is determined by y." This sentence incorrectly phrases the idiom as "potential ... is determined from wind speeds." Finally, there is a subtle distinction between the idiom "so x as to y" and "x is enough to y." The original sentence uses the idiom "so x as to y" to indicate that characteristic x is so extreme in the particular case that y results. In contrast, the idiom "x is enough to y" is used when x is the criteria by which an ability to achieve y is measured. Thus, if a sentence stated that "a category 5 storm has wind speeds high enough to blow away small buildings," this would convey a different meaning: that wind speeds are the criteria by which one measures the ability to blow away small houses.

(E) CORRECT. All idioms in the sentence are used correctly.

As per OG 11th Edition, SC Q33 Page 675, option C) the construction 'so x as to y' is not a correct idiom.

Please advice.

Thanks,
Neeraj Malhotra

[RonPurewal]

that's a good find. we will note it, and will possibly change the problem after looking a bit further into the issue.

to my eyes, the biggest problem with (c) on that problem (please don't post the specifics of the problem itself) is the placement of the phrase "is it" - a weird backward construction that's not occasioned by anything at all, and which looks and reads like a strangely misplaced attempt at poetry.
i see that the answer explanation includes "so x as to y is not a correct idiom", but the answer keys for the o.g. aren't always the greatest things in the world; there are even one or two places in which they advocate seemingly contradictory usages, although they are reasonably consistent on the whole.

but thank you for pointing this out; we will probably update the question in some way as a result.

-- ron

[ssandeepan]

Hi,

The explanation provided to rule out the option D is not convincing enough. I could eliminate the rest of the answer choices on the basis of "determined by" and "potential to " .
However between, D and E , "High enough" looks more promising than "So high as" - the reason is same that I have read in the OG 11 "so X as to Y " is not a correct idiom.

Also, the manhattan explanation for ruling out D is "that wind speeds are the criteria by which one measures the ability to blow away small houses" - which looks like the case in case of E as well .

Can you please elaborate a little more on this .

[kegewex]

I'm gonna call shenanigans on this one. High enough to blow away small buildings?

The explanation claims that "High enough to blow away small buildings" has "a different meaning: that wind speeds are the criteria by which one measures the ability to blow away small houses.


But that is exactly what we are saying. That the level of a hurricane is determined by the wind speed and the hurricane has a wind speed of a certain level that can cause a house to blow away. If the hurricane was any weaker, then the wind speed would be lower and thus not high enough to blow away houses. Alas, we are talking about a category 5 storm and the wind speed IS "high enough" to cause this damage.

[RonPurewal]

I'm gonna call shenanigans on this one. High enough to blow away small buildings?

The explanation claims that "High enough to blow away small buildings" has "a different meaning: that wind speeds are the criteria by which one measures the ability to blow away small houses.


But that is exactly what we are saying. That the level of a hurricane is determined by the wind speed and the hurricane has a wind speed of a certain level that can cause a house to blow away. If the hurricane was any weaker, then the wind speed would be lower and thus not high enough to blow away houses. Alas, we are talking about a category 5 storm and the wind speed IS "high enough" to cause this damage.

hi -

we're probably going to edit this problem, as there's not a whole lot of evidence on which to decide between "so x as to y" and "x enough to y".

there is at least one gmat prep problem on which "so ADJ as to VERB" is in a correct answer, so we know that the aforementioned answer key is just totally out to lunch.