mountain yellow-legged frog

[tankobe]

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

I can quickly rule out B and E because they can not refers to frog or an endangered species , and i can also rule out B since passive voice is worse. however, A and D seem equal to me; the OA is D. could you explain why A is wrong?

[mikrodj]

IMO the placement of quite possibly seems to modify Wildlife Service rather than list.
I'm not sure whether is in unidiomatic but at least to me sounds awkward.

Is this a GMAT problem? I think there is an ambiguity in the pronoun it that could refer to the frog or Sierra Nevada or even the decline. Problem 78 in the OG specifies that objects in prepositional phrases are poor antecedents so I'm surprised to see it referring back to the frog.

[tankobe]

IMO the placement of quite possibly seems to modify Wildlife Service rather than list.
I'm not sure whether is in unidiomatic but at least to me sounds awkward.

Is this a GMAT problem? I think there is an ambiguity in the pronoun it that could refer to the frog or Sierra Nevada or even the decline. Problem 78 in the OG specifies that objects in prepositional phrases are poor antecedents so I'm surprised to see it referring back to the frog.

yes, it's a gmat problem:some guys decode the prep software and free out all of the problems.
1)quite possibly seems a little ambiguous because it can modify severe [i]enough; so if i want decrease the ambiguity,could write the phrase like:
severe enough for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to list itquite possibly [/i]?

2) like in OG12-78, in this context frog in prepositional phrases seems like a poor antecedent;when first seeing the question, i think the best way to figure out the problem is to omit it(especial in 'for...to...'stucture),but unfortunely, frog is not the subject of clause, so we cann't omit it. am i write?

[mikrodj]

Could you let me know where to find that document? since GMAT Prep is free I guess there is no problem putting it on the Internet.


you're right. You have to refer to the frog using a pronoun or repeating the noun. Here since as you said the frog is a poor antecedent I would've repeated the noun.

Let's wait for another opinions.

[tankobe]

Could you let me know where to find that document? since GMAT Prep is free I guess there is no problem putting it on the Internet.


you're right. You have to refer to the frog using a pronoun or repeating the noun. Here since as you said the frog is a poor antecedent I would've repeated the noun.

Let's wait for another opinions.

OK, leave the e-mail to me. i will be glad to send the document to you.

[mikrodj]

thank you.

[enriqoc]

Usage of "Seriously enough" is incorrect. A enough to Y puts emphasis on Y, which is not the case here. That rules out A,B and C. E is incorrect because there is no clear antecedent to "they"

[rahultm30]

94. (29615-!-item-!-188;#058&003960)

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

I can quickly rule out B and E because they can not refers to frog or an endangered species , and i can also rule out B since passive voice is worse. however, A and D seem equal to me; the OA is D. could you explain why A is wrong?

IMO A is incorrect simply because option A says that the decline was serious enough for the United states fish and Wildlife service which is incorrect because the decline has been for the state of nevada and option d corrects this error at the same time clearly mentioning that United states fish and Wildlife service can list it as endangered. Also option A says "quite possibly to list it" which is wordy.

[tankobe]

bump!!!

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

I can quickly rule out B and E because they can not refers to frog or an endangered species , and i can also rule out B since passive voice is worse. however, A and D seem equal to me; the OA is D. could you explain why A is wrong?
source:GMATPREP

could anyone explain why enough...to is always wrong and so...that is always right?

[esledge]

could anyone explain why enough...to is always wrong and so...that is always right?

I'm not sure that one is always right and the other always wrong--they are just different, so correct usage depends on the intended meaning.

For example,
Rohit is playing his stereo system loud enough for the people in the next building to hear it.
Rohit has turned the volume up with the intention of letting/making the people next door hear it.

Rohit is playing his stereo system so loud that the people in the next building can hear it.
Rohit is rocking out, possibly oblivious to the people next door, who just happen to be able to hear the stereo.

[tankobe]

could anyone explain why enough...to is always wrong and so...that is always right?

I'm not sure that one is always right and the other always wrong--they are just different, so correct usage depends on the intended meaning.

For example,
Rohit is playing his stereo system loud enough for the people in the next building to hear it.
Rohit has turned the volume up with the intention of letting/making the people next door hear it.

Rohit is playing his stereo system so loud that the people in the next building can hear it.
Rohit is rocking out, possibly oblivious to the people next door, who just happen to be able to hear the stereo.

thank you, Emily!
(1) sometimes, i find enough ....for sb/sth to be done is worse than enough ....for sb/sth to do sth in GMAT(such as in option C), can you confirm? try to compare the following two sentences to above ones.

1#Rohit is playing his stereo system loud enough for it to be heard by the people in the next building.
2#Rohit is playing his stereo system loud enough for the voice to be heard by the people in the next building.

(2)what is wrong with A? I think for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service quite possibly to list it is OK.
example:
One of the earliest known birds with a beak and contour feathers, Confuciusornis sanctus, had large clawlike "thumbs" on its wings, probably to help it to climb up to a launching position for flight.

[RonPurewal]

(1) sometimes, i find enough ....for sb/sth to be done is worse than enough ....for sb/sth to do sth in GMAT(such as in option C), can you confirm? try to compare the following two sentences to above ones.

1#Rohit is playing his stereo system loud enough for it to be heard by the people in the next building.
2#Rohit is playing his stereo system loud enough for the voice to be heard by the people in the next building.

hmm.

we're all ultimately just guessing here, since these conjectures have not been substantiated on the actual exam. however, i would not expect any of these examples of "enough for NOUN to VERB" to be considered idiomatically correct, especially on a test like the gmat.

here are the two instances in which i think "enough for" could be ok:
(1) just followed by a noun (there is enough topsoil for the front garden, but not enough for the back garden)
(2) the noun modified by enough is the DIRECT OBJECT of the following verb: (there are not enough questions for James to study -- note that "questions" is the direct object of "study")

tankobe, you could just kill "for it" in your #1, and it becomes perfect: ...loud enough to be heard by...

(2)what is wrong with A? I think for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service quite possibly to list it is OK.
example:
One of the earliest known birds with a beak and contour feathers, Confuciusornis sanctus, had large clawlike "thumbs" on its wings, probably to help it to climb up to a launching position for flight.

heh, "i think". unfortunately, the test disagrees with you. :)

your skill in finding these other problems is impressive, but that's not a good problem to use as an analogy. in that problem, "probably" follows a comma, beginning an entirely new modifier.
in the current problem, "quite possibly" is inserted willy-nilly into the middle of an existing modifier, with no commas or anything else to block it out.

in any case, as i wrote above, i strongly suspect that this particular version of "enough for" is just plain wrong.

[tankobe]

(1) sometimes, i find enough ....for sb/sth to be done is worse than enough ....for sb/sth to do sth in GMAT(such as in option C), can you confirm? try to compare the following two sentences to above ones.

1#Rohit is playing his stereo system loud enough for it to be heard by the people in the next building.
2#Rohit is playing his stereo system loud enough for the voice to be heard by the people in the next building.

hmm.

we're all ultimately just guessing here, since these conjectures have not been substantiated on the actual exam. however, i would not expect any of these examples of "enough for NOUN to VERB" to be considered idiomatically correct, especially on a test like the gmat.
here are the two instances in which i think "enough for" could be ok:
(1) just followed by a noun (there is enough topsoil for the front garden, but not enough for the back garden)
(2) the noun modified by enough is the DIRECT OBJECT of the following verb: (there are not enough questions for James to study -- note that "questions" is the direct object of "study")

i feel better now!! the two rule above is what i really agree, but i do not cofirm for a long time. since the rules is from you Ron’s mouth, i will take it as granted---for killing option as quickly as i can.
in addition, if the noun modified by enough is not the DIRECT OBJECT of the following verb, we need so...that... construct.
by the way, Ron, call me stephen, which is easy for rememberring, since you are a american.

your skill in finding these other problems is impressive, but that's not a good problem to use as an analogy. in that problem, "probably" follows a comma, beginning an entirely new modifier.
in the current problem, "quite possibly" is inserted willy-nilly into the middle of an existing modifier, with no commas or anything else to block it out.

in any case, as i wrote above, i strongly suspect that this particular version of "enough for" is just plain wrong.

yeah, it is my skill in finding these other problems but not ,unfortunately,in explaining them. the latter is your skill, which i try to keep up with.
Ok! just the words--- i strongly suspect that this particular version of "enough for" is just plain wrong is enough; i am glad to follow you suggestion.

[yogesh.garg1983]

In my opinion, "enough for" converts option A in passive voice, in which "the United States Fish and Wildlife Service" is the subject.

But "so severe that" in option D keeps it in active voice, in which "The decline of the mountain yellow-legged frog" is the subject.

@Ron does my analysis is correct?

[RonPurewal]

In my opinion, "enough for" converts option A in passive voice, in which "the United States Fish and Wildlife Service" is the subject.

But "so severe that" in option D keeps it in active voice, in which "The decline of the mountain yellow-legged frog" is the subject.

@Ron does my analysis is correct?

no.
actually, 2 different kinds of no.

no #1:
the "for" has nothing to do with active/passive; prepositions are irrelevant to verb voice.
you should google "english passive voice" for examples and fuller explanations, but the essential idea is that passive voice is (form of TO BE) + (past participle).
e.g.
i drove home = active voice
i was driven home = passive voice ("was" is a form of "to be"; "driven" is a past participle)
i have driven home = active voice (there's no form of "to be" here; this is just the present perfect of the normal verb)
i have been driven home = passive voice ("have been" is a form of "to be"; "driven" is a past participle)

here, choices (c) and (e) are in the passive (to be + listed); the others aren't.

no #2:
you appear to be operating under the principle that the passive voice is an error.
that's not true; the passive is not an error -- it's just as legitimate as the active voice, just used for different purposes.

there's no real "preference" either way -- in the 33 splits in OG12 between active and passive, 17 are resolved in favor of the passive, and the other 16 in favor of the active. that's pretty much exactly a 50/50 split.