Often major economic shifts are so gradual as to be indistinguishable

Because the sentence starts with often, we don't really need a can there. For example:

1. Often, voters are asked to... ← This happens often, but probably not always.
vs.
2. Often, voters can be asked to... ← Pretty much the same thing, but with an additional layer of that "sometimes" meaning (because of can).

It is the word often that really makes a difference here. If we were instead looking at all possible events, then a can could help.

3. Voters are asked to... ← "everyone"
vs.
4. Voters can be asked to... ← "some, but probably not all"

Also, the GMAT seems to like having a that in so that constructions.

Therefore, we'd say that option A is better than option B.

As AjiteshArun suggested, (B) seems to be missing a "that". Consider the following examples:

• "The earthquake was so strong that it was felt 500 miles away from the epicenter." - Correct.
• "The earthquake was so strong; it was felt 500 miles away from the epicenter." - This could also work, but it changes the meaning very slightly. In the previous example, the second part of the sentence qualifies the first part: how strong was the earthquake? SO strong THAT it was felt... In this example, the two parts of the sentence are seemingly independent -- this version does not explicitly tell us that the earthquake was felt 500 miles away BECAUSE the earthquake was so strong.
• "The earthquake was so strong it was felt 500 miles away from the epicenter." - Incorrect. If the second part qualifies the first part, then we need to use "so strong that" (as in the first example). If we want each part to be independent, we have to separate the two parts (i.e. with a semicolon, a period, or a comma+conjunction). By itself, "so strong" doesn't work.

(B) is wrong for the same reason: it makes far less sense without a "that".

I hope this helps!

Hello GMATNinja!!,
Thank you for clearing out doubts, you are awesome!.
In the above question I had chosen C as the answer, and to be honest nobody has done a good POE for it, all I hear is it's "wordy" or "how can shifts be unable to distinguish", according to me the later line of thinking would have been incorrect if it said something like" unable to be distinguishable".

I'll be glad if you could shed some light on why the option is incorrect.

Posted from my mobile device

GMATNinja - Could you please help me get clarity on this question?

T'hank you for the kind words, deveshj21!

Generally speaking, whenever we see the construction, "[SUBJECT] is unable to [VERB]," it means that the subject is attempting, unsuccessfully, to perform some action. For example, "Tim is unable to decide which of his children to feed tonight." Here, Tim, who probably should not have had children in the first place, is trying to decide which child to feed, and he can't do it. He's failed to perform a desired action.

Now consider option (C) in this light: "Often major economic shifts are so gradual that they are unable to be distinguished.." Now it sounds as though the economic shifts are trying to be distinguished, but they've failed because they're just too darn gradual. This doesn't make sense: economic shifts aren't active agents that attempt to do things. So (C) isn't incorrect because it's wordy; it's incorrect because the meaning is illogical.


Let us know if you have a specific question that isn't addressed above?

Hi,
I have a doubt regarding meaning in option A:
so gradual as to be indistinguishable vs so gradual as to be distinguishable.
Doesn't the sentence says that shifts are so gradual that they cant be distinguished from ordinary fluctuations. So why we cant use so gradual as to be distinguishable?
Thanks in advance!!

Hi Harman95,

so gradual as to be indistinguishable
is similar to
~so gradual that they cannot be distinguished

and

so gradual as to be distinguishable
is similar to
~so gradual that they can be distinguished

The intended meaning is that major economic shifts happen so slowly that they cannot be distinguished from ordinary fluctuations.

Hi,

When solving the question I realized that "indistinguishable" raises a question of possession.
Indistinguishable to whom?

The only answer that was suitable to answer the question was E. Although it was disqualified by many here.

Can someone please clarify the priority of the issue I raised in regards of choosing the best answer?

Thanks!

Hi erezla,

We must try not to take that call. Indistinguishable is commonly used without specifying a "who", and there is nothing wrong with doing this.

GMATNinja generis AjiteshArun

Can someone please tell the meaning when 'so as to' is used in (A). Everyone has commented on the idiom usage and that (A) is correct because the idiom is correct. My question is regarding the meaning.

Often major economic shifts are so gradual as to be indistinguishable at first from ordinary fluctuations in the financial markets.

Does 'as to be' mean 'that they are' ? Doesn't 'as to be' give an 'intention' or sort of feeling that the economic shifts are he doer of this gradual shifts so as to indistinguishable ?

Will appreciate expert opinion on this.

Hi altairahmad,

You're right. So [ADJ] as to + [plain form] is like a so... that here. I usually look at so as to as being slightly different. So as to is more like a to ("in order to"). It'd be great to see how others approach this though.

Also, this post on so that may be useful.

This question tests two things: our familiarity with the so [ADJECTIVE] as to [PLAIN FORM] idiom, and our ability to remove options that have preference/meaning errors.

A. Although so as to... (definition 4) is typically used to communicate intention, the so [ADJECTIVE] as to [PLAIN FORM] (definition 1b) in this option is more like a "so that" or ~"with the result that" (~the outcome of something).

economic shifts are so gradual as to be indistinguishable from ordinary fluctuations ~ economic shifts are so gradual that they are indistinguishable from ordinary fluctuations

Here's another official question that does the same thing:

B. Option B is not grammatically incorrect, but there are two reasons to take it out: (a) the GMAT prefers to use a that in so... that and (b) can is not necessary here because the sentence anyway starts with often. That is, given the intended meaning of this sentence, "often, they are X" is better than "often, they can be X".

C. "They are unable to be" is not a very good way of saying "they cannot be" or "they are in-", and attaches some kind of ability/inability to economic shifts, which is unexpected (the shifts are able or unable to do something?).

D. "Not to be distinguishable" is not as good as "indistinguishable". Also, enough to be is typically used when someone or something meets (or does not meet) some required standard or mark. For example: the vaccine was safe enough to be approved or the vaccine was not safe enough to be approved. It seems strange to make to be distinguishable the result of some standard for major economic shifts.

E. This option has the same problem as D, and gradual enough so that would almost certainly be considered unidiomatic on the GMAT.

Hi AjiteshArun GMATNinja



I have a meaning problem with this question,

Often major economic shifts are so gradual as to be indistinguishable at first from ordinary fluctuations in the financial markets.

"A" seems to be saying that "Economic Shifts are trying to be indistinguishable from X", I think rather the sentence should state it as a fact that economic shifts are indistinguishable rather than show an intention to be indistinguishable.

Hi hero_with_1000_faces,

This to is not for intention. Although the structure (so... as to) may seem a little strange, it is used in exactly the way you want it used (economic shifts are indistinguishable rather than show an intention to be indistinguishable).

Thank You AjiteshArun

Also, in B is the usage of standalone "so" is wrong. Is it wrong within the context of this sentence or the standalone "so" is wrong in general in written english. In spoken english it is very normal to use standalone "so" to talk about magnitude of something.

That's a tough one.

I feel that the GMAT prefers to use a that in so... that, so I probably wouldn't go so far as to say that a so on its own in a so... that is incorrect. That said, it'd be great to see more opinions on this.

Hi VeritasKarishma GMATNinja EducationAisle

A lot of explanations here mentioned option B is wrong for the reason that so X so Y is not correct idiom but option B does not contain second 'so', where is this second 'so' coming from? am I missing here anything?

Cause this is what option B says