For Republicans already contemplating a gloomy fall horizon, the

Question

For Republicans already contemplating a gloomy fall horizon, the Lamont victory suggests that many Democrats are as energized as any other group of voters in years,  enough as to move them beyond protesting as to the voting booths in huge numbers.

A) enough as to move them beyond protesting as to the voting booths in huge numbers
B) enough to move them beyond protesting than to the voting booths in huge numbers
C) enough so as to move them beyond protesting and to the voting booths in huge numbers
D) enough to move them beyond protesting to the voting booths in huge numbers
E) enough so to move them from protesting and from the voting booths in huge numbers

smaheshwari0407 · Answer

I thought it to be C. Can some one explain why D?

saikiransomala · Answer

Hi  smaheshwari0407 ,

Let us understand the meaning of the sentence first: 
For Republicans already contemplating a gloomy fall horizon, the Lamont victory suggests that many Democrats are as energized as any other group of voters in years,  enough as to move them beyond protesting as to the voting booths in huge numbers.

After a gloomy fall horizon, the lamont victory has added to extra energy to the democrats in such a manner that extra effort is needed to move the democrats beyond protesting to the voting booths.

Option C, by adding an 'and' starts listing the activities which is not the case per the meaning.

Option D appropriately rectifies the error and maintains the intended meaning of the sentence.

Option A: by using 'as....as' it starts comparing 
Option B: Again it commits the same error as Option A
Option E: Uses 'and'..hence it starts listing

So I chose Option D.

Any queries please let me know.

Regards

Sai Kiran

suresh8055 · Answer

As per my understanding 
 enough to  is the idiom here,
 So ultimately option B and D are choice .
B : protesting than : meaning changes

So D is the choice

b9n920 · Answer

For Republicans already contemplating a gloomy fall horizon, the Lamont victory suggests that many Democrats are as energized as any other group of voters in years,  enough as to move them beyond protesting as to the voting booths in huge numbers .

A) enough as to move them beyond protesting as to the voting booths in huge numbers
B) enough to move them beyond protesting than to the voting booths in huge numbers
C) enough so as to move them beyond protesting and to the voting booths in huge numbers
D) enough to move them beyond protesting to the voting booths in huge numbers
E) enough so to move them from protesting and from the voting booths in huge numbers

I have doubts in understanding the intended meaning here. 
 Whether 'them' in the underlined portion refers to Democrats, 'voters', or the Republicans? Logically it is expected refer to Democrats, but try to have a look on the sentence w/o the fluff:
  For Republicans, the Lamont victory suggests that Democrats are as energized as any other voters, enough to move  the Democrats  beyond protesting to the voting booths.

So, basically Democrats are energized enough to move themselves? Doesn't sound good.

If them refers to 'voters', again an non-sensical meaning, I guess. 
 I don't think 'them' intends to refer to Republicans.

Even if we find the logical antecedent of 'them', isn't there a obvious pronoun ambiguity? Experts pls comment on that.

Thanks.

mmagyar · Answer

I am not a huge fan of this question for a few reasons:

The underlined part is a modifier for "energized" - it tells us how energized they are.

While D is one of the better answers, it still suffers from ambiguity and possible error.

"enough to move them beyond protesting to the voting booths in huge numbers"

What does this mean? We know they are energized "enough to" therefore "move them beyond" something, so the first part is fine. However, what are they moving beyond? Is it "protesting" or "protesting to the voting booths in huge numbers"?

We might think it is the latter ("protesting to the voting booths in huge numbers") because the prepositional phrase "to the voting booths..." could be modifying "protesting". If so, then we have an inconsistent meaning because it suggests that they are moving beyond going to the voting booths. In other words, they are no longer voting, which is the opposite of the sentence's direction based on the "Lamont victory". I don't think this was the intention of the question's author.

If it is the former (just "protesting"), then the rest of the sentence isn't very clear and doesn't sound right. It should tell us that they are moving "beyond protesting" and that they are now moving "to the voting booths in huge numbers". However, this means that they are being moved to do two things, so those two things should be combined into a list with "and". D should say "enough to move them beyond protesting  and  to the voting booths in huge numbers", creating a nice parallel between "beyond protesting" and "to the voting booths" (both prepositional phrases, so able to be in parallel).

Sometimes we can avoid this and chain prepositional phrases together (e.g. "I have class    "), but it doesn't seem like we can do so in this case. I don't want to just say that it sounds awkward (because then I'd sound like the Official Guide), but I don't have a good grammatical answer (anyone else have one?). My best reason why is because it can cause ambiguity since the second part, "to the voting booths...", might actually describe the first part "protesting", but there is probably a better way to explain that.

I don't think you explained this well. You basically decided what the meaning should be as your explanation and then said that any other meaning is wrong. That's not helpful. If everyone could understand the sentence as exactly the right answer word-for-word, then this forum wouldn't exist. Why is that the meaning? Why did you put the prepositional phrases "beyond protesting" and "to the voting booths" together? Doesn't that seem awkward and also create ambiguity?

Basically, I'm asking you, why not a list, especially since the energizing is actually moving them to two different things and since separating those two things precludes the second one from modifying the first and therefore makes it more clear? I'm mainly targeting this because I don't want people to misunderstand the rules and make up something new that doesn't exist like "avoid lists" or something.

I think you misunderstand the way the modifier works. "enough" is acting as an adverb and is modifying the clause "that Democrats are as energized as any other voters". In other words, it is describing the extent to which they are energized. If you expand it out, it says "the Democrats are energized enough to ...". Since it is passive, the Democrats are not energizing themselves - it is an external force, probably the Lamont victory, that is energizing them and therefore moving them to do something. There isn't a problem there, though I agree that it might possibly be ambiguous.

I also think you misunderstand the importance of ambiguity, because pronoun ambiguity is low priority and does not equal wrong. Here is a rough list of SC importance:

1. Grammar rules (e.g. Subject/Verb Agreement)
2. Bad meaning (though this is often intertwined with the grammar rules)
3. Clarity of meaning (are alternative meanings possible?)
4. Concision (how short is it)

Pronoun agreement is in a few categories. If there is no agreeable noun available for the pronoun, then that is a grammar error. If the only available agreeable nouns for the pronoun don't make sense, that is a meaning error. If there are multiple agreeable nouns available and that make sense (ambiguity), then that is a clarity error.

Notice how pronoun ambiguity is lower on the list. If 4 other answers are wrong for grammar and meaning issues, then the pronoun ambiguity issue isn't fatal to the answer and can still be the credited choice. It is only after we have worked through all of the other differences in the answers that might bring about grammar issues or impermissible meanings that we start to consider pronoun ambiguity in our analysis.

I'll explain it another way: Grammar issues mean that the answer is wrong. Pronoun ambiguity means that the answer is possibly correct or possible incorrect. Since pronoun ambiguity still means that it could be possibly correct, we cannot just automatically eliminate answers that have it. Sure, if two answers are both grammatically correct and have the same correct meaning, then we can start eliminating based on ambiguity, but we cannot eliminate before determining that.

Hope that helps!

AryamaDuttaSaikia · Answer

The correct idioms are 1) enough to 2) beyond A to B. Moreover, the comparison has to be parallel.

......enough as to move them................as to the voting booths.... - wordy construction. It also lacks clear intent.
......move them .........than to voting booths... - Wrong meaning. The sentence suggests that there are two places for consideration where the protesters were thought to be moved. The word ‘than’ plays the spoiler. There is not 'more' to support it.
…enough so as to..... – wordy construction
CORRECT: move them......to voting booths.....- clear intent and transition observed.
Same as C

b9n920 · Answer

Hi AryamaDuttaSaikia Kindly provide the compete explanation, mentioning the intended meaning and especially explain the modifier 'enough as to move them beyond protesting as to the voting booths' i.e. the underlined portion. I think a detailed explanation from the creators of the question is needed. Thanks in advance.

mmagyar · Answer

From where did you get this idiom? Please provide the source and/or an official GMAT question that uses it.

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

For Republicans already contemplating a gloomy fall horizon, the

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

For Republicans already contemplating a gloomy fall horizon, the

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards