Leslie Shumway’s testimony during the Al Capone trial was so damning

So X as Y - is a correct idiom. Hence I chose option C at first blush. My reasoning was "it", a pronoun, cannot refer back to Leslie Shumway’s testimony.
Now I believe it actually refers to the testimony, not to Leslie Shumway’s testimony. So option A is not wrong.
After analyzing the meaning I came to below conclusion :

So X as Y means something - so damming as to wake up - Dammingness crosses the threshold to wake up the defendant from the state of complacency.
This situation rather demands consequence - The testimony was so damming that it woke up the defendant.....

Can someone please provide your thoughts and help me if I am missing something.

Merry Christmas and a happy new year.

Regards,
Arup

+1 for C. Because of (So....As) structure.

Leslie Shumway’s testimony during the Al Capone trial was so damning that it woke the defendant from his state of complacency.

A. Leslie Shumway’s testimony during the Al Capone trial was so damning that it woke
So X (Present Progressive) that Y (Past) is wrong. Either X or Y should be present or X should be in past progressive.

B. Leslie Shumway’s testimony during the Al Capone trial was of such damning effect, it woke

C. So damning was Leslie Shumway’s testimony during the Al Capone trial as to wake

D. Such was Leslie Shumway testimony’s damning effect during the Al Capone trial, it awakes
Wrong usage of Such and idiomatic mistake

E. There was so much damning effects, that Leslie Shumway testimony during the Al Capone trial woke
Meaning is changed. Indeed, became meaningless.

aragonn, GMATNinjaTwo, sudarshan22, GMATNinja, broall, hazelnut, Vyshak, generis daagh

Dear experts,

Can you please explain whether my above reasoning was correct? OA is option A.

Regards,
Arup

Leslie Shumway’s testimony during the Al Capone trial was so damning that it woke the defendant from his state of complacency.

A. Leslie Shumway’s testimony during the Al Capone trial was so damning that it woke
B. Leslie Shumway’s testimony during the Al Capone trial was of such damning effect, it woke
C. So damning was Leslie Shumway’s testimony during the Al Capone trial as to wake
D. Such was Leslie Shumway testimony’s damning effect during the Al Capone trial, it awakes
E. There was so much damning effects, that Leslie Shumway testimony during the Al Capone trial woke

Hi ArupRS , your reasoning is either 100% correct on both the consequence and pronoun issues,
or almost 100% correct.
I cannot tell whether you decided that (A) was okay because the noun 's possessive modifiers were just modifiers and hence "it" was allowed to stand for testimony,
or whether you (and many aspirants) adhere to a "possessive poison" pronoun rule that is not quite accurate, or at least is not absolute.
Either way, nice work!

• CONSEQUENCE? Yes.
The sentence that I highlighted above is well-reasoned.

You are correct that "this situation rather demands consequence,"
so if an idiom is involved, we need one that shows consequence.

So X that Y.
The witness's testimony was SO damaging to Al Capone THAT the testimony changed his complacent (smug) attitude.

You: The testimony was so damning that it woke up the defendant.....
Yep, spot on.

• PRONOUNS? - correct result. Reasoning?

You are correct that the pronoun it refers to testimony.

What comes before a possessive noun, N, is an adjective that answers the question, "WHOSE N?"
Adjectives are in italics:
-- Lila's raincoat/ her raincost
-- 3M's stock price/ its stock price
-- Kelly and Kristen's house / their house

You thus correctly realized that the possessive name before "testimony" was a descriptor of the noun (an adjective, in this case),
not the noun itself.

Careful, though. I cannot tell whether you relied on the possessive poison rule.
The possessive pronoun rule is controversial at best and occasionally not observed by the GMAC at worst.

• The possessive poison pronoun rule

Strong form of poison pronoun rule followed by some grammarians but not by GMAC:
-- The possessive poison rule states that if the antecedent noun is in the possessive form, only a possessive pronoun may refer to the noun.

Correct according to the strict poison pronoun rule: Timothy's mother wanted his help to lift the box.
Object pronoun not okay: Timothy's mother wanted him to help her lift the box.
Subject pronoun not okay: Timothy's mother decided that he should help her lift the box.

• GMAC's position: Sometimes the a possessive noun can be followed by an object or subject pronoun.

(1) An object pronoun (HER, HIM, THEM) can refer to a possessive noun. (More common than #2)

HERE is a CORRECT official example in which an object pronoun MUST refer to a possessive noun; all of the answer choices contain the object pronoun HER:
Spoiler alert: correct answer to an official question is given.

(2) A subject pronoun (she, he, they) CAN refer back to a possessive noun (rare)

This (2) situation seems to be acceptable only if other answers have indisputable errors.
This is my example of a construction that GMAC has allowed (see the post I cite below).
The antecedent for she is the possessive descriptor (adjective) Eleanor Roosevelt's.

Although Eleanor Roosevelt's positions created much more backlash than those of her husband, FDR,
some historians believe that she was the better political thinker.

I discuss the "poison pronoun" rule's evolution in THIS POST, HERE.
In it I discuss and link to an official question in which the poison pronoun rule is not observed.
That official question has remained in official guides for four years. It was not a mistake.

ArupRS , nice work.
I hope the reply answers your question.

Official Explanation:

Something is so X that Y is a common idiomatic construction. (A) correctly follows this construction: Leslie Shumway’s testimony was so damning that it woke.
Thanks to generis for the detail explanation.

generis Thank you for such a brilliant explanation. I was not aware of any rule such as possessive poison. Going through the concepts.
I was aware of two rules:

X's Y ---> we can use a pronoun that refers to Y.
X's Y ----> cannot use a pronoun, such as it, she or he, which refers to X, but the possessive form of that pronoun, such as its, her Y, etc can be used.

Regards,
Arup

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.