Namangupta1997 wrote:
The correct answer is the most succinct , but at the same time it fails to highlight the subtle gist of the statement. By that I mean, the answer is not able to emphasize that something is needed which is >= a breakthrough.
AjiteshArun What am I missing ?
Hi
Namangupta1997,
You're right, and if I remember correctly, that's what the official explanation also pointed out (that option A is wordy). Let's understand why we take a call on the basis of concision rather than meaning. We'll ignore the "
less for count/noncount" debate entirely in my examples (that's okay, because there are no count/noncount issues in this question).
1. When we use
no less than with a
number, we
can mean "≥":
1a.
The number of tiles must be no less than 100. ← We could read this as "the number of tiles must be at least 100".
However, look at this sentence:
1b.
No less than seven astronauts were killed during flight STS-107. ← This is not meant to be read as "
7 or more astronauts were killed during...".
It's actually a way to emphasise that 7 is a large number. So the sentence should be read like this
~"
7(!) astronauts were killed during flight STS-107".
Both are valid ways to use
no less than, and context helps us decide which meaning we're looking at. For example, in (1b), it's easy for the reader to understand that we know exactly how many people were on that space shuttle, and that therefore, the author is looking for emphasis, not an open-ended range.
2. Similarly, in this question, this is option A:
2a.
... no less than a technical or scientific breakthrough is necessaryThis should
not be read as "
a technical or scientific breakthrough or something more than a technical or scientific breakthrough is necessary" (what does
more than a technical or scientific breakthrough even mean?). Instead, we should read this sentence as "a technical or scientific breakthrough is necessary", just with additional emphasis.
If we say that something is necessary, that's enough for us to understand its importance. Therefore, option C is almost the same as A, but shorter. That makes it (slightly) better than option A.