Even their most ardent champions concede that no less than a technical

B is awkward ans wordy: nothing other is a bad negative form for C, which is plain and has a positive meaning. always prefer positive forms!

Struck between A and C

(A) hat no less than a technical or scientific breakthrough is necessary (No less than verbose – "necessary" implies it or serves this purpose – Eliminate it)

(B) that nothing other than a technical or scientific breakthrough is needed (needed – Tense Change - Eliminate)

(C) that a technical or scientific breakthrough is necessary (Hold it)

(D) the necessity for an occurrence of a technical or scientific breakthrough (Grammatically Correct – But verbose – Eliminate it)

(E) the necessity for a technical or scientific breakthrough occurring (Why to make it a present continuous tense – Eliminate it)

C

"no less than a scientific break through is necessary" has the same meaning that "a scientific break through is neccessary" has. Why not make the sentence shorter and more concise?

choices can be narrowed down to AC. C is more succinct. It might appear the C is changing the meaning but in reality its not. When we say ‘no less than’, we are saying ‘equal or more’. The sentence in option C has the correct meaning by removing ‘the more’ part.

I don't agree that C has different meaning than A and B.

If anything "less than" (A) or "not a" (B) breakthrough is not acceptable, why not just say that in the sentence and concisely state what IS necessary.

I choose C.

Is the use of "No less than..." always wordy, thus wrong?

C is simple and perfect. Can anyone please explain, Are other options grammatically sound?

(A) that no less than a technical or scientific breakthrough is necessary
(B) that nothing other than a technical or scientific breakthrough is needed
(C) that a technical or scientific breakthrough is necessary

(A) No less than 100$ is needed
(B) Nothing other than 100$ is needed
(C) 100$ is needed

I think, (B) and (C) convey the same meaning, where as (A) conveys different meaning (anything >= 100$ is fine)

Thanks.

Even their most ardent champions concede that no less than a technical or scientific breakthrough is necessary before solar cells can meet the goal of providing one percent of the nation’s energy needs.

(A) that no less than a technical or scientific breakthrough is necessary
(B) that nothing other than a technical or scientific breakthrough is needed
(C) that a technical or scientific breakthrough is necessary
(D) the necessity for an occurrence of a technical or scientific breakthrough- idiom issue - the necessity of
(E) the necessity for a technical or scientific breakthrough occurring - idiom issue - the necessity of

The explanation provided is-"Choices A and B needlessly lengthen the statement by expressing the idea through negation: no less than and nothing other than could be dropped without loss of meaning." ---> I don't think 'no less than A or B' is the same as 'A or B '.
Can you provide reasons to eliminate options A and B. (I chose option A)

AjiteshArun , GMATNinja , MagooshExpert , GMATGuruNY , VeritasPrepBrian , MartyTargetTestPrep , DmitryFarber , VeritasKarishma , generis , EducationAisle , VeritasPrepErika , other experts - please enlighten

(B) isn't really logical.

(B) that nothing other than a technical or scientific breakthrough is needed before solar cells can meet the goal ...

The version created via the use of (B) conveys that, before solar cells can meet the goal, nothing other than a technical or scientific breakthrough is needed.

That meaning is a bit off. So, after solar cells can meet the goal, other things will be needed, but before solar cells can meet the goal, only one of two things, a technical breakthrough or a scientific breakthrough, is needed, not water, not air, nothing else is needed?

Regarding (A), I guess it has a few unnecessary words. Do we really need "no less than"? I'm not sure. (A) conveys a meaning a bit different from that conveyed by (C). (A) seems to convey that something as significant as a a technical or scientific breakthrough is needed, while (C) conveys that a technical or scientific breakthrough is needed. Are there other things that might be sufficient? Probably not. So, one could argue that the use of "no less than" is unnecessary and, perhaps, a bit illogical, but really, (C) is not so clearly better than (A), and this question is not very high quality.

To get it correct, you have to decide what the writer probably liked.

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-


Choice A: In this answer choice, "less than" is used to refer to "technical or scientific breakthrough", an uncountable noun. Additionally, this answer choice expresses the intended meaning by utilizing negation; in this manner, the answer choice leads to a needlessly wordy sentence. Thus, this answer choice is incorrect.

Choice B: In this answer choice, as is the case in Option A, negation is used to lay emphasis on the information conveyed; this negation leads to a needlessly wordy sentence. Thus, this answer choice is not a good one.

Choice C: This answer choice maintains proper idiom use, preserves the intended meaning of the sentence, and is quite concise. Thus, this answer choice is correct.

Choice D: This answer choice utilizes the unidiomatic phrase "necessity for"; the correct form of this idiom is "necessity of". Thus, this answer choice is incorrect.

Choice E: This answer choice repeats the idiom-related error found in Option D. Thus, this answer choice is incorrect.

Hence, C is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Collective, Countable, and Uncountable Nouns on GMAT", you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

MEANING


Even their most ardent champions concede that no less than a technical or scientific breakthrough is necessary before solar cells can meet the goal of providing one percent of the nation’s energy needs.

(A) that no less than a technical or scientific breakthrough is necessary ---- Incorrect because of redundancy. "No less" and "necessary" are redundant.

(B) that nothing other than a technical or scientific breakthrough is needed ------ Incorrect meaning and wordiness.

(C) that a technical or scientific breakthrough is necessary ------ Correct. Precise and to the point.

(D) the necessity for an occurrence of a technical or scientific breakthrough ------ "concede the necessity" is wordy. Too many prepositional phrases.

(E) the necessity for a technical or scientific breakthrough occurring ------ "concede the necessity" is wordy. Too many prepositional phrases.

I'm stuck between A & C.
Logically, in A, 'No less' would mean equal to or greater than.
and in C, it says a technical breakthrough or a scientific breakthrough is needed. (logically implying only equal to.)

Wouldn't that change the meaning?

I agree, TheGuyDangerous. However, you have to keep in mind that all you can take as gospel in a Sentence Correction question is the non-underlined part. In this sentence, we have

Even their most ardent champions concede... before solar cells can meet the goal of providing one percent of the nation’s energy needs.

You have to ask yourself, what is being conceded, exactly? Compare the two answer choices in question:

(A) that no less than a technical or scientific breakthrough is necessary
(C) that a technical or scientific breakthrough is necessary

The phrasing is identical, except for the highlighted part in (A), which you have already noted. Now you have to consider whether it is absolutely necessary for no less than to be included to convey the vital meaning that it would take a breakthrough to meet the goal... You should be able to see that although the extra phrase adds emphasis, similar to what you might see in a stylized headline, it does not add anything necessary to understand the point that its stripped-down counterpart does not. I would expect to see a generic, none-too-helpful "wordy" given as an explanation in the OG, but what it really comes down to is expression of vital information. Choice (C) is simply better to that end.

Please let me know if you have further questions. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

"No less than" is not wordy - "No less than the power of 5 horses is required to move this chariot."... correct.

Is "power" quantifiable?

Posted from my mobile device

sayantanc2k What is wrong in the understanding of (B) that you have mentioned? I understand (C) is better suited, but doesn't it lack the intensity that (B) carries? Should we care about the expression?

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 necessary

This 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.