SC Guide 8, 3rd ed - page 217

[ooisuankim]

At page 217, question 10(h) is wrong:

The chemical processes were complex enough for them to require additional analysis

My question is, why is the sentence above wrong, if I base the construction as per page 205 of the same book, wherein the sentence.."The book was short enough for me to read in one night" - is correct?

Thank you!

[esledge]

Hmm, this is a good question. I initially started a response that said it had to do with the "for them to (do)..." and "for me to (do)" difference. "Them" in 10(h) refers to the subject, "chemical processes." Whereas "me" is a new actor in the sentence.

But why not "The book was short enough to read in one night"?

Maybe the "for me" is optional/acceptable in the book example--at least it's not redundant.

But "for them" is redundant and unnecessarily interupts the idiom in the chemical processes example.

In any case, I am going to ask some other colleagues to review this.

[RonPurewal]

hi - some additional perspective.

first of all:
don't forget, guys: this test doesn't use the first person. you will never have to worry about "i/me/we/they".
(also, no second person, either - no "you".)
all gmat sentences are written in the third person.

But why not "The book was short enough to read in one night"?

Maybe the "for me" is optional/acceptable in the book example--at least it's not redundant.

there are two reasons why "the book was short enough to read in one night" won't work. both are clarity issues.

1. INCORRECT MEANING
if you say "NOUN is ADJ enough to VERB", then the NOUN must also be the subject of the VERB.
i.e.,
jimmy is tall enough to reach the top shelf --> the verb "reach the top shelf" applies to jimmy.
therefore, this version creates an absurdity: "short enough to read" implies that the book itself is reading (something unspecified) in one night. that doesn't make sense.

this rule is violated routinely in spoken language, of course; hence the difficulty.

2. MEANING SHIFT
"for me" is essential to the meaning of that particular example; it couldn't be left out.
i.e., "short enough to read in one night" is a universal statement: anyone could read the item in one night.
"short enough for me to read in one night" could have a drastically different meaning if "my" reading speed differs significantly from the average.

as for whether the construction "ADJ enough for PERSON to VERB" is actually idiomatic, though - i have no idea.
it sounds suspiciously informal; it doesn't seem like "gmat style" to me. but, at the same time, i won't immediately mark it as colloquial, since i can't immediately think of a better, more formal alternative.

--

if you wanted to rewrite this without "for me", you would use the passive:
the book is short enough to be read in one night
(note that this satisfies the subject rule above: "the book" is indeed the subject of "to be read". that's the point of the passive voice)
this sentence still suffers from the meaning shift mentioned in #2 above, though, but at least it removes problem #1.

But "for them" is redundant and unnecessarily interupts the idiom in the chemical processes example.

yes, there is a redundancy issue, but it's actually much worse than that.

again, i'm not sure whether "NOUN is ADJ enough for PERSON to VERB" is acceptable as an idiom, but, if it is, then the NOUN must be the direct object of the VERB.
let's check:
the book was short enough for me to read in one night
direct object? (i.e., do i read the book)?
yes.

the chemical processes were complex enough for them to require additional analysis
chemical processes is not the direct object of require, so this won't work.

[aggarwal.mail]

the book was short enough for me to read in one night

How do we decide that Noun should be object or subject of to + verb?
" NOUN is ADJ enough for PERSON to VERB" is not clear to me. If aforementioned sentence is correct, then the book is object of verb read. But why not subject ?
There are two contradictory statements in Mr. Ronpurewal's reply, or I may be confused.

the book is short enough to be read in one night: The book is subject of passive verb to be read.
please clarify !!

[tim]

No, Ron's answer is not contradictory. In your first sentence, "me" is the person doing the reading (the subject), and book is the object of "read". In your second one, "book" is the only noun, so it must be the subject. Not a problem though, as a book can definitely "be read" even though it cannot read. The difference is the distinction between the active verb "read" and the passive verb "be read"..

[ikuta.yamahashi]

hi - some additional perspective.

first of all:
don't forget, guys: this test doesn't use the first person. you will never have to worry about "i/me/we/they".
(also, no second person, either - no "you".)
all gmat sentences are written in the third person.

But why not "The book was short enough to read in one night"?

Maybe the "for me" is optional/acceptable in the book example--at least it's not redundant.

there are two reasons why "the book was short enough to read in one night" won't work. both are clarity issues.

1. INCORRECT MEANING
if you say "NOUN is ADJ enough to VERB", then the NOUN must also be the subject of the VERB.
i.e.,
jimmy is tall enough to reach the top shelf --> the verb "reach the top shelf" applies to jimmy.
therefore, this version creates an absurdity: "short enough to read" implies that the book itself is reading (something unspecified) in one night. that doesn't make sense.

this rule is violated routinely in spoken language, of course; hence the difficulty.

2. MEANING SHIFT
"for me" is essential to the meaning of that particular example; it couldn't be left out.
i.e., "short enough to read in one night" is a universal statement: anyone could read the item in one night.
"short enough for me to read in one night" could have a drastically different meaning if "my" reading speed differs significantly from the average.

as for whether the construction "ADJ enough for PERSON to VERB" is actually idiomatic, though - i have no idea.
it sounds suspiciously informal; it doesn't seem like "gmat style" to me. but, at the same time, i won't immediately mark it as colloquial, since i can't immediately think of a better, more formal alternative.

--

if you wanted to rewrite this without "for me", you would use the passive:
the book is short enough to be read in one night
(note that this satisfies the subject rule above: "the book" is indeed the subject of "to be read". that's the point of the passive voice)
this sentence still suffers from the meaning shift mentioned in #2 above, though, but at least it removes problem #1.

But "for them" is redundant and unnecessarily interupts the idiom in the chemical processes example.

yes, there is a redundancy issue, but it's actually much worse than that.

again, i'm not sure whether "NOUN is ADJ enough for PERSON to VERB" is acceptable as an idiom, but, if it is, then the NOUN must be the direct object of the VERB.
let's check:
the book was short enough for me to read in one night
direct object? (i.e., do i read the book)?
yes.

the chemical processes were complex enough for them to require additional analysis
chemical processes is not the direct object of require, so this won't work.

Great explanation, Ron
but I still have a little bit confusion, as below two sentences each are right example in the Idiom Chapter of 5th Manhattan SC guide.
The book was SHORT ENOUGH TO READ in a night.
The book was SHORT ENOUGH FOR me TO READ in a night.

In the first sentence, 'the book' is not the agent of 'read.' I seem that this sentence conflict with Ron's lecture:
*if you say "NOUN is ADJ enough to VERB", then the NOUN must also be the subject of the VERB.*
Could Ron or other instructor help to explain?

[tim]

i don't so much see the problem here. can you please elaborate so that we can help you with this one?

[ikuta.yamahashi]

i don't so much see the problem here. can you please elaborate so that we can help you with this one?

Dear Tim:

So nice you are for answer my question at Thanksgiving weekend.Thanks alot!
What real confusion for me here is the difference between Ron's reply and the content in Sc guide idiom list.

Ron's reply:
*if you wanted to rewrite this without "for me", you would use the passive:
the book is short enough to be read in one night
(note that this satisfies the subject rule above: "the book" is indeed the subject of "to be read". that's the point of the passive voice)
this sentence still suffers from the meaning shift mentioned in #2 above, though, but at least it removes problem #1.*

Idiom list from the book
ENOUGH See also SO / THAT
RIGHT: The book was SHORT ENOUGH TO READ in a night.
The book was SHORT ENOUGH FOR me TO READ in a night.
......................................................
SUSPECT: The power plant has found a way to generate energy at an unprecedented scale, ENOUGH FOR powering and entire city.
......................................................
WRONG: The book was SHORT ENOUGH THAT I could read it in a night.
The book was SHORT ENOUGH FOR IT TO BE read in a night.
The book was SHORT ENOUGH SO THAT I could read it in a night.
The book was SHORT ENOUGH AS TO BE read in a night.

Your sincerely Yama

[tim]

i don't exactly see the problem here. Ron gave you one acceptable construction, the book gave another one. there's nothing preventing them from both being correct..

[ikuta.yamahashi]

i don't exactly see the problem here. Ron gave you one acceptable construction, the book gave another one. there's nothing preventing them from both being correct..

Dear Tim:

What confuse me is those constructions are contradictory.

Ron gave the construction to reason why "The book was SHORT ENOUGH TO READ in a night." was wrong.

there are two reasons why "the book was short enough to read in one night" won't work. both are clarity issues.

However
in the idiom list "The book was SHORT ENOUGH TO READ in a night." is a Right example.

I am not interest in nitpick or offend your authority; instead I am confusing in this point and eager to know which is right.
Could any instructor please to clearify it for me?

Yours Ikuta

[jnelson0612]

i don't exactly see the problem here. Ron gave you one acceptable construction, the book gave another one. there's nothing preventing them from both being correct..

Dear Tim:

What confuse me is those constructions are contradictory.

Ron gave the construction to reason why "The book was SHORT ENOUGH TO READ in a night." was wrong.

there are two reasons why "the book was short enough to read in one night" won't work. both are clarity issues.

However
in the idiom list "The book was SHORT ENOUGH TO READ in a night." is a Right example.

I am not interest in nitpick or offend your authority; instead I am confusing in this point and eager to know which is right.
Could any instructor please to clearify it for me?

Yours Ikuta

Hi Ikuta,
That is an excellent point! I am going to bring this to the attention of my colleagues and we will provide further clarification.

[RonPurewal]

hi ikuta,
you are correct that my observations above clash with what's written in the book.

i have good news, though -- as far as i know, this sort of thing has never been tested on the official gmat exam. (it is definitely not tested anywhere in og12, og13, or gmat prep.) so, at this point, it seems that the issue is not worth pursuing.

in the unlikely event that this sort of construction crops up in a future official problem, i will update this discussion accordingly.

[ikuta.yamahashi]

Thanks Ron and Jamie :)

I remember that similar structure exist in OG verbal2 SC-105. I can get the right answer by POE, but one red-hering structure in this question is similar to this thread.
Below the scentences is reversed from this official question(hope it would not offend the copyright,) could you please help to confirm my understanding?

1. IR is invisible because its freqency is too fast to be registered by the eye.
2. IR is invisible because its freqency is too fast for the eye to register.
3. IR is invisible because its freqency is too fast for the eye to register it.
4. IR is invisible because its freqency is too fast to be register.
5. IR is invisible because its freqency is too fast to register.

I think both the first and second revision are acceptable, the third is wrong only because the it is redundant here.
The No. 4 is also acceptable if the author intend to address a general fact. But the last is Wrong because it seems there is no agent of the action to register.
Please correct me if i am wrong.

Thanks for your great help.
Yours Ikuta

[tim]

this looks fine. it appears you have a good understanding of how and when to use these constructions..

[ikuta.yamahashi]

this looks fine. it appears you have a good understanding of how and when to use these constructions..

Many thanks Tim. :)