Granitic soil

[ShashankB122]

Source: GMATPREP

Researchers hypothesize that granitic soil is the ideal construction material for the desert tortoise because it is not so hard that it makes burrowing difficult or so soft that it could cause tunnels to collapse.

A. so hard that it makes burrowing difficult or so soft that it could cause
B. hard enough to make burrowing difficult or soft enough as to cause
C. so hard as to make burrowing difficult or soft enough so it causes
D. as hard as to make burrowing difficult or as soft as to cause
E. too hard, making burrowing difficult, nor too soft, so as to cause

OA:- A

I went with D.
In A i could not see parallelism between " So hard that it makes burrowing difficult" and " so soft that it could cause".

Choice D: Is it incorrect idiom? as .. as to

[RonPurewal]

In A i could not see parallelism between " So hard that it makes burrowing difficult" and " so soft that it could cause".

they're pretty darn parallel. in fact, they're EXACTLY parallel.
so + [adjective] + that + it + [verb]

both parts have exactly the same form.

[RonPurewal]

incidentally—

the verbs are in different tenses, but that's irrelevant to parallelism.

remember: from the standpoint of grammar, ALL verbs are equivalent.
verb TENSES are determined ENTIRELY by meaning/context, and NEVER by grammar.

here, we want different tenses, because one of these things is something that's permanently true (it makes burrowing difficult) while the other represents only the potential that something could happen (it could cause tunnels to collapse).

this simpler sentence, with the same construction, should be easier to understand:
Frank is extremely angry and could start yelling or punching the wall at any moment.

[RonPurewal]

Choice D: Is it incorrect idiom? as .. as to

yep. that's not a thing.

so (adjective) as to (verb) is a thing, but that construction doesn't figure in this problem. (it appears in choice C but is plainly not parallel to its counterpart.)

[HemantR606]

Frank is extremely angry and could start yelling or punching the wall at any moment.

Hi Ron,

I have 2 doubts (Only first one refers to the quote)


1. My first doubt may be silly, but I'm just asking out of confusion.

Isn't the word could in the example you have provided of wrong tense.
The first verb is is angry and hence the event is happening in present. So, shouldn't we use can start instead of could start?
Doesn't could start indicate only a past moment or a hypothetical situation?


2. Is the not- nor combination in option E correct?


Thank you.

[tim]

Your sentence IS hypothetical, so "could" is quite appropriate.

"Neither...nor" is the correct way to express the sentiment you're asking about, rather than "not...nor".

[RonPurewal]

The first verb is is angry and hence the event is happening in present. So, shouldn't we use can start instead of could start?
Doesn't could start indicate only a past moment or a hypothetical situation?

as tim pointed out, we ARE talking about a 'hypothetical situation', so 'could' is perfectly appropriate.

moreover, the meaning of 'can' is completely different—it expresses capability (what someone can or can't do).

These walls can collapse.
––> 'It is physically possible for these walls to collapse.'
(NO indication that this is likely to happen right now)

(You should probably leave the building, because) these walls could collapse.
––> hypothetical situation, but note the context: it's a hypothetical that is relevant right now, presumably because there's an elevated chance that it will happen.

[RonPurewal]

The first verb is is angry and hence the event is happening in present. So, shouldn't we use can start instead of could start?
Doesn't could start indicate only a past moment or a hypothetical situation?

as tim pointed out, we ARE talking about a 'hypothetical situation', so 'could' is perfectly appropriate.

moreover, the meaning of 'can' is completely different—it expresses capability (what someone can or can't do).

These walls can collapse.
––> 'It is physically possible for these walls to collapse.'
(NO indication that this is likely to happen right now)

(You should probably leave the building, because) these walls could collapse.
––> hypothetical situation, but note the context: it's a hypothetical that is relevant right now, presumably because there's an elevated chance that it will happen.

the first of these doesn't make sense in this context, so 'can' won't work here.

[YingC357]

Hi Ron~~

I go with choice (A) (decide on parallel )but feel perplexed by the meaning...

...because it is not "(A) so hard that it makes burrowing difficult or so soft that it could cause" tunnels to collapse.

Does the word "not" just modify "so hard"? Or it modify both "so hard" and "that it makes burrowing difficult"?

My question is that if granitic soil is not so hard, how can it makes burrowing difficult? (Usually, the harder, the more difficult to burrow. )

Thank you in advance:)

[RonPurewal]

Or it modify both "so hard" and "that it makes burrowing difficult"?

'not so hard that xxxx' is the negation of 'so hard that xxxx'.
it means that 'so hard that xxxx' is not true.

i think that's what you mean in this quote ^^. if so, you're good.

note that there is no more efficient way to write this idea.
i agree that the present version is not the most elegant thing in the world—but a more elegant construction simply does not exist in the english language.

[RonPurewal]

Does the word "not" just modify "so hard"?

remember, GMAC never 'plays games with words' and never tests 'tricky' interpretations.

if this were the intended meaning, it would be written as 'so soft that...'

[RonPurewal]

My question is that if granitic soil is not so hard, how can it makes burrowing difficult? (Usually, the harder, the more difficult to burrow. )

if you made this observation, then there isn't even an issue in the first place!

the intended meaning—which will be the meaning of the correct answer—will ALWAYS agree with common sense.
so, if you (i) know which answer is correct and (ii) have a common-sense understanding of what it says, then you can figure out how any 'mystery' constructions work.
they just work however they have to work to yield the correct (common-sense) meaning.

[Maria MartaA308]

Hi Ron,

I read your explanations but i don't understand why D is not correct. Could you please explain it a lit bit more?

If as X as to Y should be use " as - adjective- as to -verb- "
why "as hard (adjective) as to make (verb) and as soft (adjective) as to cause" is wrong?

thank you in advance

[RonPurewal]

"as [adj] as to [verb]" is not a valid english construction.

[AbhishekD643]

Hi Tim/Ron,

Thank you for the great explanations! [Not just above, but also in the amazing Navigator and Thursday series - great stuff!]

I wonder if you could elaborate on D - Is this wrong because of parallelism?

"... not adv+adj,modifier nor adv+adj,modifier"

I'm also interested in understanding if there is a meaning nuance in this one

Also, as a general principle, would you say parallelism should be an absolute rule or a relative rule?


[Edit: Parallelism should indeed be viewed as a relative thing.

@RonP - remember that parallelism is a "beauty contest"--a relative judgment. (this is why the problems are multiple-choice!)

URL: https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... 25007.html

]


Thanks!