Often major economic shifts are so gradual as to be indistinguishable

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

(A) so gradual as to be indistinguishable
(B) so gradual they can be indistinguishable
(C) so gradual that they are unable to be distinguished
(D) gradual enough not to be distinguishable
(E) gradual enough so that one cannot distinguish them

so gradual they can be indistinguishable

Hi VeritasKarishma GMATNinja EducationAisle
Cause this is what option B says

(B) so gradual so that they can be indistinguishable

Interesting Rohit. I googled this question and some websites mention that following is what option B looks like:

Hi EducationAisle, pleaser refer to the attached image, I have taken this from OG2020 edition, my question is why is B incorrect in this one?

At the very east, isn't a that missing in B?

...so...that...

Also, can you let us know what the Official explanation for B is?

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.

I was between A and B, and I finally chose B.
a. There is an idiom there. So … as to … This option is shorter than option b and overall looks fine. (I did not see the idiom though)
b. The problem with option “b”, has nothing to do with grammar. The problem is with the meaning. The word “Can” changes everything because we are not talking about that the graduality of economic shifts has the possibility of making the economic changes indistinguishable. The intended meaning is that they are actually indistinguishable.

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Concepts tested here: Idioms + Redundancy/Awkwardness

• “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.

A: Correct. This answer choice correctly uses the idiomatic construction “so + cause (“gradual”) + as to + effect (“be indistinguishable”)”. Further, Option A is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

B: This answer choice incorrectly uses the unidiomatic construction “so + cause (“gradual”) + effect (“be indistinguishable”)”, rather than one of the idiomatic constructions “so + cause + as to + effect” or “so + cause + that + effect”; please remember, “so + cause + that + effect” or “so + cause + as to + effect” are some of the preferred constructions for conveying a cause-effect relationship.

C: Trap. This answer choice uses the needlessly wordy phrase “they are unable to be distinguished”, leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

D: This answer choice uses an awkward phrase “enough not to be distinguishable”; “enough” is used to show “adequacy” and generally not used to show a cause-effect relationship. We have a better answer choice in A.

E: This answer choice uses the unidiomatic construction “cause (“gradual”) + enough + so that + effect (“one cannot distinguish them”)”, rather than one of the idiomatic constructions “so + cause + as to + effect” and “so + cause + that + effect”; please 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.

Hence, A is the best answer choice.

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



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

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

(A) so gradual as to be indistinguishable
(B) so gradual they can be indistinguishable
(C) so gradual that they are unable to be distinguished
(D) gradual enough not to be distinguishable
(E) gradual enough so that one cannot distinguish them

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

(A) so gradual as to be indistinguishable
(B) so gradual they can be indistinguishable
(C) so gradual that they are unable to be distinguished
(D) gradual enough not to be distinguishable
(E) gradual enough so that one cannot distinguish them


SC87460.01
OG2020 NEW QUESTION

I'm afraid to say that this question is another weird SC question that doesn't make any sense no matter how hard I look at it. yes we can rely on idioms but relying on idioms has never appealed to me.
the intended meaning behind this sentence is " there are major economic shifts that when they happen, appear indistinguishable from ordinary fluctuations" not a single option conveys this message in a clear way.
it's not clear if the action of being "indistinguishable" is on purpose, or it happens as a result.

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

(A) so gradual as to be indistinguishable
(B) so gradual they can be indistinguishable
(C) so gradual that they are unable to be distinguished
(D) gradual enough not to be distinguishable
(E) gradual enough so that one cannot distinguish them


SC87460.01
OG2020 NEW QUESTION