Technically, quicksand is the term for sand that is so saturated wit

what second "that" stand for, Waster ? Can pronouns "that" refer to different nouns?

Anyway, the character of a liquid already suggests the seems that you wanted to insert to clarify the matter in your second sentence. The character of something just implies a similarity, not an exact likeness. For instance, if I say that "pop" dancing has acquired the character of fluid movement over the years (look up David Elsewhere on YouTube if you are unfamiliar with this style of dance), you should understand that I am not comparing a dance to water, just that I am remarking on a similarity in movement that I perceive between the two.

My advice: stick with what is on the screen. Adapt your approach to the question at hand, and if you miss it, use the opportunity to build your understanding.

- Andrew

hi ANDREW, I like your approach,
would you please help check my approach, of course, less efficient than yours.

D,E, "saturated" modifies sand, and words "so as to" and "so much as to " shows term acquire a liquid character, so I think it is illogical, how can a term acquire a character.

C: I thought saturated and enough are redundant, because saturate means sucks a lot lot lot of water.
A: "so as to" leads me think what subject acquire, sand can be subject if "that is so saturated with water" as modifier, or term can be subject if "that is so saturated with water as to acquire a liquid's character".

B wins.

seems there is no posts mentioned similar approach as mine, so I need your confirmation.

thanks in advance.

Could you help to elaborate more on this issue?

Dear experts,
In option (A), OG says that: Lacking a subject, this sentence fails to state a clear condition."
Can you please explain why this sentence has no subject?

And doesn't this sentence follow proper stucture of "so as to"?

Hello, Pankaj0901. I think the OA describes just what it means to convey, that so _____ in this context, a construct that indicates the extent of something, will precede an embedded clause—that...—to draw a proper comparison (the clear condition of the OA). In any case, I did not approach the question with such a consideration. Instead, I considered (A) through (C) as one cluster and (D) and (E) as another. Here, that is warranted at the head of the underlined portion because sand serves as the subject of the embedded clause (and could stand in for that). Then, (C) is the odd one out because it adopts a juvenile-sounding saturated... enough that also focuses on the lower limit of saturation rather than emphasizing that same degree of saturation (by using so saturated). That is, if the sentence aims to compare quicksand to water, then so saturated is more fitting.


- Andrew

Hi AndrewN - when I read the bit in pink from you, I got confused

Why did you eliminate D and E, just because D and E started with a past participle whereas A/B/C start with a "THAT".

Is there a subtle difference between the two from a meaning perspective ?

Per my understanding there is no difference between these two sentences.

This is a bucket THAT is filled with water
This is a bucket FILLED with water

Hello, jabhatta2. Apologies for the confusion. What I meant to say was simply that I separated the five answer choices into two groups based on the head of the line, those that start with that and those that do not. I did NOT use a missing that to eliminate (D) or (E). Rather, I had a serious doubt about (D) as soon as I hit the second word, enough. Why would the sentence need to say saturated enough when a clearer alternative exists in so saturated? Meanwhile, (E) suffers from a similar problem in saturated... so much. How is that better than so saturated? How can something be saturated so much? These are compelling reasons to doubt the soundness of (D) or (E). As for your bucket sentences, yes, either one would do.

I hope that clarifies your concerns about my earlier post. Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew

Hi AndrewN - if i understand correctly, what you are saying is
i. so saturated > saturated ENOUGH

I actually thought both were equivalent.

Why do you think so saturated > saturated ENOUGH

example below sentences : i thought so saturated = satured enough

The chicken is so saturated with fat to the point that the chicken cannot be eaten
The chicken is satured enough with fat to the point that the chicken cannot be eaten

I think satured enough is wrong becuase it changes the meaning a bit. satured enough is giving almost a "lower limit" of fat content in the chicken whereas so saturated is perhaps talking about the fat content in general (no min amount is being referenced)

Hi avigutman - just curious, can you solve this problem without idioms ?

Here were my thoughts

-- Eliminate C because water enough in option C is not as clean as "saturated enough" in option D. Hence option C cannot be as strong as option D. Hence C is not as good as D and thus I can eliminate C.

-- E eliminate because I dont know if
a) so much in E is supposed to be an adjective to water
OR
b) is E using the expression " I filled in for her so much as to do all her work for her

But between A/B/D -- just wasn't sure.

A dog's eyes can reveal much about its temperament.
Here, the phrase in blue implies that every dog has UNIQUE eyes -- eyes that can reveal much about the dog's temperament.

A: a liquid's character
This phrase seems to imply that every liquid has a UNIQUE character.
Not the intended meaning.
The intention here is to discuss the general nature of any given liquid.
The OA correctly expresses this meaning:
"Quicksand"... is so saturated with water that it acquires the character of a liquid.
Here, THE CHARACTER of a liquid = the general nature of any given liquid.

Hello Everyone!

Even though the stats for this question show it's a tricky one, we can narrow down to the right option by exploiting the error type clues.

Let's start by looking at the differences in the options:

1. that is so saturated / saturated enough
2. acquires / to acquire
3. character / characteristics

Verb tenses are often an easy place to start narrowing down options, so definitely let's start by tackling #2 on our list: acquires vs. to acquire.

When we use the to+verb combination, it implies intention. This means that when we say the sand wants "to acquire" the characteristics of water, it is a thinking, breathing, intentional being that chooses to go out and get the characteristics of water. We know that sand isn't a living thing that has intentions of its own. Therefore, it isn't appropriate to say "to acquire." Here are some examples:

I want to acquire the rights to that song for my movie. = CORRECT (I'm a person with thoughts and intentions, so it's okay.)

The chair is so short as to acquire the perfect balance for short children. = WRONG (A chair can't want "to acquire" balance from somewhere - it's either balanced or it's not. The chair can't decide for itself what it wants to be!)

The school acquires new students every fall. = CORRECT (Just saying "acquires" doesn't imply intention is involved. It just happens, so it's okay.)

Now, let's use that understanding and we'll be able to decimate the incorrect options. Check it out:

(A) that is so saturated with water as to acquire a liquid's character

(B) that is so saturated with water that it acquires the character of a liquid

(C) that is saturated with water enough to acquire liquid characteristics

(D) saturated enough with water so as to acquire the character of a liquid

(E) saturated with water so much as to acquire a liquid character


There we have it. The only answer that doesn't imply that sand or quicksand "chooses" to take on the characteristics of a liquid is answer B.

Don’t study for the GMAT. Train for it.

Technically, "quicksand" is the term for sand that is so saturated with water as to acquire a liquid's character.

(A) that is so saturated with water as to acquire a liquid's character

(B) that is so saturated with water that it acquires the character of a liquid

(C) that is saturated with water enough to acquire liquid characteristics

(D) saturated enough with water so as to acquire the character of a liquid

(E) saturated with water so much as to acquire a liquid character


(SC00971)

Here is another question with "so..as to" and "so...that" constructions in the answer choices.

https://gmatclub.com/forum/often-major- ... 94376.html

In the above question choice A is preferable to all other choices and therefore is the correct answer. But if we were to change choice (C) "so gradual that they are unable to be distinguished" to "so gradual that they are indistinguishable" would the answer choice still be A?

I suppose yes, because it seems that the question is trying to say that ordinary fluctuations and gradual economic shifts are "seemingly" analogous. It is not trying to say that they are IN FACT the same.

Could you tell me whether I am correct in my thinking?