Immanuel Kant's writings, while praised by many philosophers

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Concepts tested here: Idioms + Tenses

• “enough + to” is a correct, idiomatic usage; besides, “enough” is used to show “adequacy” and generally not used to show a cause-effect relationship; rather, “so + cause + that + effect” or “so + cause + as to + effect” are some of the preferred constructions for conveying a cause-effect relationship.
• Information that is permanent in nature is best conveyed through the simple present tense.
• The simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past.

A: Correct. This answer choice correctly uses the idiomatic construction "so + cause + as to + effect" to refer to the cause-effect relationship between the sentences being dense and convoluted and the sentences being a significant hurdle for many readers interested in Kant's works. Further, Option A avoids the errors related to the use of "enough" seen in Options D and E, as it does not use "enough". Additionally, Option A correctly uses the simple present tense verb "pose" to refer to information that is permanent in nature.

B: This answer choice fails to maintain the idiomatic construction "so A ("dense and convoluted") that B ("they posed a significant hurdle...)", as it omits "that"; remember, “so A that B” is a correct, idiomatic usage that describes cause (A) and effect (B). Further, Option B incorrectly uses the simple past tense verb "posed" to refer to information that is permanent in nature; remember, information that is permanent in nature is best conveyed through the simple present tense, and the simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past.

C: This answer choice incorrectly uses the simple past tense verb "posed" to refer to information that is permanent in nature; remember, information that is permanent in nature is best conveyed through the simple present tense, and the simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past.

D: This answer choice incorrectly uses "enough" to refer to the cause-effect relationship between the sentences being dense and convoluted and the sentences being a significant hurdle for many readers interested in Kant's works; remember, “enough” is used to show “adequacy” and generally not used to show a cause-effect relationship; rather, “so + cause + that + effect” or “so + cause + as to + effect” are some of the preferred constructions for conveying a cause-effect relationship. Further, Option D incorrectly uses the unidiomatic construction "enough that"; remember, "enough + to" is the correct idiomatic construction. Additionally, Option D incorrectly uses the simple past tense verb "posed" to refer to information that is permanent in nature; remember, information that is permanent in nature is best conveyed through the simple present tense, and the simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past.

E: This answer choice incorrectly uses "enough" to refer to the cause-effect relationship between the sentences being dense and convoluted and the sentences being a significant hurdle for many readers interested in Kant's works; remember, “enough” is used to show “adequacy” and generally not used to show a cause-effect relationship; rather, “so + cause + that + effect” or “so + cause + as to + effect” are some of the preferred constructions for conveying a cause-effect relationship. Further, Option E incorrectly uses the unidiomatic construction "enough as"; remember, "enough + to" is the correct idiomatic construction.

Hence, A is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Simple Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



To understand the use of "So As To" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Good question

Firstly the writings are still there and so they still "pose" problems for readers.... yes , "posed" is wrong... so down to (a) and (e) .. ( a) is clear and concise....

P.s (c) looks tempting enough but can be easily eliminated on the basis of tenses.

Immanuel Kant's writings are characterized by sentences so dense and convoluted as to pose[/u] a significant hurdle for many readers interested in his works.

Meaning: Kant's writings contain complex sentences and these sentences are so complex that readers face problems to understand them.

This sentence is presented as a general fact or statement.

A. so dense and convoluted as to pose.............answer

B. so dense and convoluted they posed..........they don't pose only in past they can be difficult even now. Changes the intended meaning.

C. so dense and convoluted that they posed..............so that indicates purpose.
There is no purpose here i.e., neither difficulty is intentionally induced nor hurdles for reader are intentional.
posed repeats here.

D. dense and convoluted enough that they posed.........enough error is introduced here.
posed issue repeats here.

E. dense and convoluted enough as they pose...............changes the intended meaning as if they become complex when they pose hurdles for reader.


There are few aspects to be noted here.
1. here convoluted is an adjective not a verb in past tense.
Meaning of convoluted as per Oxford dictionary is as below.



So here dense and convoluted both define the complex nature of sentences.

2.Why option A is correct.

"So X as to Y" means something is SO (big, strong, slow, whatever, but something kind of extreme) that it actually causes something else to happen - something that wouldn't ordinarily happen.

so here the sentences are so difficult that their difficulty resulted in becoming hurdle for readers.

3. For those who feel D or E can be right. This info from Mgmat forum helps.

1. The temperature outside was cold enough to cause frostbite.
2. The temperature outside was so cold as to cause frostbite.
There is a subtle distinction between the idiom "so x as to y" and "x is enough to y."

The original sentence uses the idiom "so x as to y" to indicate that characteristic x is so extreme in the particular case that y results.

In contrast, the idiom "x is enough to y" is used when x is the criteria by which an ability to achieve y is measured.
Thus, if a sentence stated that "The temperature outside was cold enough to cause frostbite." this would convey a different meaning: that the temperature is the criteria by which one measures the ability to cause frostbite."

For one thing, "X enough to Y" has a little more of a connotation of intention -- for example, "I ate enough to win the eating contest" is preferable to "I ate so much as to win the eating contest."

In the former case, I intended to win the contest, and I ate enough to ensure that. In the latter case, I could have simply been on an eating binge, and by accident I wound up winning the contest.

However, in the case, the difference isn't one of intention. In the first case, "The temperature was cold enough to cause frostbite," I'm emphasizing the outcome -- in a way, I'm defining two temperature ranges, one that causes frostbite and one that doesn't, and I'm saying, we're in the former.

But if I say "The temperature was so cold as to cause frostbite," in a sense I'm just tossing out the fact that frostbite would be caused in this case, but I'm not defining a threshold as I am with the "cold enough to cause frostbite."

In Option C, can "they" be used to refer to sentences ??
Or "they" is only used to refer people??

Hi,
THEY can refer to both person and objects..
Even sentences can be referred by they..
example..
who wrote those sentences?
they were written by Mr X..

Well I don't know whether I am right or not but for me is clear that "they" don't have a clear antecedent, so straightforward to A.

Yes, the pronoun they is definitely ambiguous.

In fact because it is subject of a clause (they pose significant hurdle), it actually refers to writings, subject of another clause (writings are characterized), by virtue of parallelism. (GMAT allows such reference if there are more than two possible antecedents). Nonetheless they should actually refer to sentences, not writings.

Hi chetan2u / daagh / mikemcgarry ,

Can you please suggest me when these constructions with examples.
1. So...as...
2. So...that...

A. so dense and convoluted as to pose.
C. so dense and convoluted that they posed

Whats wrong with option C.
I hope we use so..that construction to show intensity but when it comes to choose between these two, I am totally clueless.
I face a lot of trouble in choosing between these construction.

If there is any rule so that I can learn it better, then it would be the best option for me.

Please help in this
Will be waiting for your response.
Thanks

hi,
the difference is not so much on so..that.. and so..as to ..
but what THEY refers too..
they here refers to the writings, while the original by removing PRONOUN talks of the "sentence"

E in its entirety: Immanuel Kant’s writings, while praised by many philosophers for their brilliance and consistency, are characterized by sentences so dense and convoluted enough as they pose a significant hurdle for many readers who study his works.

'Enough' mostly means to be to a satisfactory level or extent to do something positive or fulfill a desire or wish. Negative phenomena are unlikely to follow 'enough'. A negative feature like - they pose a significant hurdle - is, therefore, some kind of a paradox. That is the reason the acceptable idiom is -so adjective that - rather than - so adjective enough-. Since it is an idiomatic usage, we cannot question its correctness.

Hi Daagh Sir,
Is 'they' in options ambiguous ? Does it refer to writings or sentences ?

Apparently, 'they' looks ambiguous since it does not seem clear whether it refers to the writings or to the sentences. However, let us go out of the box a little. The word 'their' definitely refers to his writings. If 'their' refers to his writings, then 'they' also should refer to his writings rather than 'sentences'.

Immanuel Kant's writings, while praised by many philosophers for their brilliance and consistency, are characterized by sentences so dense and convoluted as to pose a significant hurdle for many readers interested in his works.


A. so dense and convoluted as to pose

B. so dense and convoluted they posed

C. so dense and convoluted that they posed

D. dense and convoluted enough that they posed

E. dense and convoluted enough as they pose

B,C and D are using past tense,while the sentence is using present continuous. E is change in meaning.Thus A is the correct answer.

One question.
If (C) and (D) have no tense error - using "pose" instead of "posed", will those 2 answers be correct?

Dear AnthonyRitz IanStewart GMATGuruNY DmitryFarber VeritasPrepBrian ccooley MartyTargetTestPrep,

What's wrong with choice E.?

I think "enough" is used correctly here:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enough

Is it wrong solely because of pronoun ambiguity as sayantanc2k and daagh mentioned above?

Not at all. I don't think there's really significant pronoun ambiguity in E. "they" pretty clearly refers to "sentences." Pronouns get a fair amount of leeway on the GMAT when their intent is clear.

The problems with E are twofold, and quite serious:

First of all, the phrase "dense and convoluted enough" in E makes no sense sans object. "dense and convoluted enough" ...for what? They're sufficiently dense and convoluted to no apparent end. It's weird and illogical.

Secondly, the word "as," when not used as part of the uncommon "as to pose" idiom, reverts to its usual definition of "while" (or, even less logically, "because"). But saying that the sentences are sufficiently dense and convoluted while they pose hurdles for readers is bizarre. What about the rest of the time? It's a weird "tree falls in the forest" sort of metaphysical question. "Well, you know, they're really only dense and convoluted as long as you're looking at them." Uh... no, that's too weird for it to be the logical meaning on the GMAT. And, again, saying that they're sufficiently dense and convoluted because they pose difficulties for readers is even weirder and more illogical, in a sort of cart-before-horse reverse-causation way.

Focus on big-picture logical meaning, rather than trying to memorize secondary definitions and idiomatic constructions for every word in the language!

I understand option A, But what's wrong with the usage of option C