SC: Unlike [u]the short flights of the shuttle and

[benjamindian]

either you need Sufficient fuel for
Or you need enough fuel for their flight.

Using together "sufficient + enough" is not good way.

just for your knowledge, MGMAT test a lot about "enough"

Enough has two possible idiom:
enough to
enough for

Water was hot enough to boil the vegetables.
water was hot enough for me to boil the vegetables.

Use:
X enough to Y
More emphasis on Y.

yes. great.

two things to add:

(1) sufficient + enough is REDUNDANT. redundancy is very bad.
same reason you wouldn't say "reply back", "added bonus", or "determined as a result of" (see #138 in OG11, if you have that).

(2) make sure you know that "enough THAT" is incorrect.
the 2 idioms mentioned above are correct.

Hi Ron,

I remember you said somewhere that the noun modified by "enough" should be the direct object of the following verb. And the example you used was:

There are not enough questions for James to study. (Here, study questions)

But in the above sentence, "Water was hot enough to boil the vegetables." We can say boil water but there is already an object "vegetables" after "boil". So what's the issue here?

[benjamindian]

Hi sunruiapply,

Not quite. The problem is that "with" can introduce either a noun or an adverbial modifier. Let me give you some examples:
"The girl with long hair is my sister."
Here I am using "with" as a noun modifier--"with long hair" is describing "the girl".

I looked out my window and saw my cat stalking a bird, with tail waving and whiskers twitching.
Here the "with tail waving and whiskers twitching" is describing the "cat stalking". It is modifying a subject and verb (clause), so it is an adverbial modifier.

If I use "with" to introduce a noun modifier I do not use a comma before it so that it is "touching" the noun it modifies; if I use "with" as an adverbial modifier I do use a comma before it.

If "comma + with" can only be an adverbial modifier, then why is there any ambiguity issue? If the rule is correct, then if we see "comma + with"，we shouldn't even think of it as a noun modifier because that thought would be wrong. So in this case,

Unlike the short flights of the shuttle and earlier spacecraft, with sufficient power in fuel cells and batteries for their short flights , a permanently orbiting space station will have to generate its own electricity.

"comma + with" is wrong not because it causes ambiguity but because it incorrectly modifies the following sentence while it intends to modify the noun right before it.

If we agree that there is ambiguity issue, then we need to agree that the comma rule doesn't apply sometimes. i.e. "comma + with" can be both an adverbial modifier and a noun modifier.

I think in the following OG sentences:

The intricate structure of the compound insect eye, with its hundreds of miniature eyes called ommatidia, helps to explain why scientists...

the "comma + with" is a noun modifier, describing the structure.

The xxx were built on a spectacular scale, with more than xx carefully engineered structures, of up to xxx rooms each, connected by a complex regional system of roads.

the "comma + with" is a noun modifier, describing the scale.

[RonPurewal]

It's true that comma + "with" can modify either a noun or an entire action/clause.
Even so, there is very seldom any ambiguity. In just about any sentence with a "with" construction, it should be perfectly clear what the modifier is intended to describe.

As for the choice you're describing here, this consideration is mostly a distraction. The comparison (short flights vs. space station) is quite clearly bad.
If there's a prominent enough error (such as the comparison in this case), it's more likely that other issues will be inserted into the choice as distractions, rather than as genuine grounds for elimination.

[FanPurewal]

hi there
can B be right answer without *sufficient* or *enough*?

[jingjiaol257]

Hi sunruiapply,

Not quite. The problem is that "with" can introduce either a noun or an adverbial modifier. Let me give you some examples:
"The girl with long hair is my sister."
Here I am using "with" as a noun modifier--"with long hair" is describing "the girl".

I looked out my window and saw my cat stalking a bird, with tail waving and whiskers twitching.
Here the "with tail waving and whiskers twitching" is describing the "cat stalking". It is modifying a subject and verb (clause), so it is an adverbial modifier.

If I use "with" to introduce a noun modifier I do not use a comma before it so that it is "touching" the noun it modifies; if I use "with" as an adverbial modifier I do use a comma before it.

hi instructor
i have a question about choice B.
Unlike the shuttle and earlier spacecraft, with sufficient enough power in fuel cells and batteries for their short flights,a permanently orbiting space station will have to generate its own electricity.

If we ignore its ambiguity , i want to know whether it's noun modifier? i think it is a noun modifier.But there is a comma before it.Whether we can distinguish the two modifiers according to the usage of comma?

Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

That kind of modifier can describe nouns, if the context is right.

[jen_yyh]

Hi

Hi guys,

I understand that in B) sufficient and enough are redundant. However, I believe that even if we delete either one, choice D) is still better than choice E) for the following reason:

With sufficient enough power in the fuel cells... can be either an adjectival or an adverbial phrase, so it is not clear that which part of the sentence this phrase modifies. If it modifies the first part of the sentence, Unlike the shuttle and earlier spacecraft, it will function as an adjectival phrase, but if it modifies the last part of the sentence, a permanently orbiting space..., it will function as an adverbial phrase. Thus this phrase causes ambiguity, so it is bad.

Can anyone comment on my reasoning? Thank you very much!

Hi Ron,

I have the same question here? Is that will be a correct answer if "enough" in B is removed? is "with..." here a absolute phrase? I'm pretty confused with the usage of with in GMAT. Please help! Thanks a lot!

dear instructors,

can you please explain a bit more?
IF we take "enough" from option (B) and turn the sentence into:

Unlike the shuttle and earlier spacecraft, with sufficient enough power in fuel cells and batteries for their short flights, a permanently orbiting space station will have to generate its own electricity.

is it a correct option?
or is it because the "with..." phrase can be either adjectival or adverbial phrase so the option remains incorrect?
i am still confused about the usage of "with..." here.


thanks! :)

[RonPurewal]

The construction could still go both ways, although it's obvious enough that the modifier is describing "the shuttle and xxx".

On the other hand, "sufficient" + "enough" is still redundant, so there's no need to think so much.

[RonPurewal]

Most importantly, don't edit GMAC's sentences.

The GMAT only tests 1-2% of the things that can actually go wrong with English sentences. If random users try to edit these sentences, the result is almost always something that's incorrect—for reasons that the GMAT doesn't test.

Making your own examples is good—but they should be your own examples. When you make up example sentences, they should be SIMPLE sentences, meant to illustrate only one construction or concept at a time.

As for GMAC's problems are concerned, your hands should be full enough with the answer choices that are provided!

[gmatkiller_24]

HI，Ron, I got some doubts about choice C.

in choice C, I know that the comparison is incorrect.

But I get some additional doubts.

it seems to me that which should refer to the short flights of the shuttle and earlier spacecraft, (which cannot refer to shuttle and earlier spacecraft, because otherwise them should be themselves)

so, the sentence goes like below:

the short flights of the shuttle and earlier spacecraft enabled them to carry sufficient enough power... ( is there something wrong with the meaning ? I just found it weird)

Please help. Thank you!

[RonPurewal]

the short flights of the shuttle and earlier spacecraft enabled them to carry sufficient enough power...

this sentence ^^ is fine, apart from the issue of redundancy ('sufficient enough').

...but it's redundant.
and, as you stated, there are other, bigger issues with that choice, too.

[meenakshig94]

[size=100]I believe the Question can be read in following ways and needs to be divided in given below point -
1. Unlike - so correct usage should be Unlike X,Y and only in B & D the usage is correct - Unlike shuttle & spacecraft....., a permanently orbiting space station.
this itself rules out A,C,E.
To select between B & D try to read for redundant words - sufficient enough in B is same meaning words so B is out and only D is left.
Hope this helps

[/size]

[RonPurewal]

do you have a question?

please clarify, thanks.

[wun866]

Hi, Ron

I am confused of the usage of capable and enable.

From my prospect, things such as shuttle and spacecraft don't have the ability, please correct me.

Meanwhile, can you explain the usage of capable and able?

thx.

[RonPurewal]

sure, those things can have capabilities.

you just have to ask yourself: "To whom, or to what, to these "capabilities" belong?"
this could very reasonably be a person, an animal, OR an inanimate object.
see here:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... tml#p94106

__

(you are also using the word "meanwhile" incorrectly)