mountain yellow-legged frog

[charmanineW924]

I looked all the threads here ,so A ia wrong :
1) the use of "enough for " because it is not in accordance with the situations you wrote above
2) quite possibly ---> I cannot understand ,why is it wrong here ?

[RonPurewal]

also, A just doesn't make sense.

"enough for xxx to happen" is a threshold. this is going to be some EXACT boundary at which something starts to happen.
paired with "quite possibly", this creates a contradiction.

if you make up examples, you'll see what i mean.

e.g.,
Joe is tall enough to reach the top shelf.
Joe is not tall enough to reach the top shelf.
one of these statements is true. the other is false.

Joe is tall enough to possibly reach the top shelf. --> NONSENSE

[RonPurewal]

now, it's possible that there is uncertainty involved in a sentence like this.

however, if there is uncertainty involved, then it must be uncertainty about whether the threshold has been reached. the threshold itself cannot be uncertain!

consider:
Your music is loud enough to be heard next door.
this statement is either true or false.

if i don't know whether this is true or false, then i CAN say
Your music may be loud enough to be heard next door.
Your music could well be loud enough to be heard next door.
Your music is quite possibly loud enough to be heard next door.
these all make sense.
i'm not sure whether the threshold has been reached.

on the other hand, this is nonsense:
Your music is loud enough to possibly be heard next door. (NONSENSE)

i think you see the point: "to POSSIBLY be heard" is not something for which a threshold can be defined. thus, in conjunction with "possibly", the whole idea of "enough" is nonsense.

[michail.palagaschwili]

Hi all,
after reading all the posts, I still couldn't find a reason to eliminate A and C.
Ok, frog is singular so eliminate B and E, but what's now ? How do you eliminate other incorrect answer choices ?
I've picked the correct answer here, as D reflects most clearly the intended meaning and makes it without using any akward and indirect constructions.

The decline of the mountain yellow-legged frog in the high reaches of the Sierra Nevada has become severe enough for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service quite possibly to list it as an endangered species in the near future.

(A) severe enough for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service quite possibly to list it
(B) severe enough so that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service could well list them
(C) severe enough for it quite possibly to be listed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(D) so severe that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service could well list it
(E) so severe that they could well be listed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service

[RonPurewal]

choice A is explained on the current page.

the same explanation(s) are sufficient to explain choice C, too.

[aflaamM589]

Hello Ron,
I hope you are doing good.

there is another split in this SC between could and possibly.
Is it a red herring or a genuine one?
Thanks in advance

[RonPurewal]

i've already said pretty much everything i can say about the use of those constructions.

their meanings are essentially equivalent.
"quite possibly" is ... cute—it's the kind of thing someone would say if she/he wanted to emulate an old british radio announcer, for instance—but i suppose there's nothing actually wrong with it.

[aflaamM589]

thanks for the reply,
allow me to ask another quick question please.

Can following be another way to reach the answer?

The decline of the mountain yellow-legged frog in the high reaches of the Sierra Nevada has become severe enough for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service quite possibly to list it as an endangered species in the near future.

(A) severe enough for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service quite possibly to list it
(B) severe enough so that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service could well list them
(C) severe enough for it quite possibly to be listed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(D) so severe that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service could well list it
(E) so severe that they could well be listed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service

in the non underline part we have as an endangered species ,
In A and D--> frog is an endangered specie
So other choices can be cancelled out
Is this reasoning valid, Ron?
Thanks
I really appreciate your guidance
God Bless you

[RonPurewal]

sorry, i don't understand. what is the reasoning by which you're (supposedly) eliminating B/C/E?

[aflaamM589]

Sorry for the ambiguity.
Let me try again.

as an endangered species should touch pronoun it
but in C and E it is touching United States Fish and Wildlife Service, so an error.

The decline of the mountain yellow-legged frog in the high reaches of the Sierra Nevada has become severe enough for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service quite possibly to list it as an endangered species in the near future.

(A) severe enough for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service quite possibly to list it--> no problem here
(B) severe enough so that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service could well list them
(C) severe enough for it quite possibly to be listed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service--> problematic
(D) so severe that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service could well list it
(E) so severe that they could well be listed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Is this an issue?

Thanks
Have a cheerful day

[RonPurewal]

no, that's not necessary.
Many young people see Rachel as a role model.
Rachel is seen by many young people as a role model.
Rachel is seen as a role model by many young people.
(all ok)

[aflaamM589]

Perfect!
Thoroughly assimilated.
Thank you very much for replying my posts patiently.
God bless you.

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.