Quarks and bosons are so minuscule so that they can be undetectable

Question

Pack 7, Question 2 of 5:

Quarks and bosons are  so minuscule so that they can be undetectable  even with an electron microscope.

A. so minuscule so that they can be undetectable
B. so minuscule as to be undetectable
C. so minuscule that they are unable to be detected
D. minuscule enough not to be undetectable
E. minuscule enough so that one cannot detect them

◀ Pack 7, Question 1  
 ▶ Pack 7, Question 3  
 ⏏ Question Pack Home

48 Hour Window To Win An $85 EMPOWERgmat Tuition Credit (1 Month Free!)   
Share your explanation!  The GMAT Club member with the most verified Kudos  in total on the 5 question SC Block 7 question pack will  win an $85 EMPOWERgmat tuition credit , which will entitle the winner to a full month of complete access to the EMPOWERgmat system. Even if you're not sure about your answer or your rationale, share your explanation to help boost your learning and earn a chance to win.

To be eligible, your explanation must:
 be submitted within the 48 hour window after this post was created
should explain your reasoning why the answer you chose is correct, and why the other 4 options are incorrect within 48 hours of this post

The OA and official explanation will be held until the 48 hour window has lapsed.

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Accepted Answer

Official Explanation

Quarks and bosons are  so miniscule so that they can be undetectable  even with an electron microscope.

A.  so minuscule  so that they  can be undetectable  
 B.  so minuscule  as  to be undetectable  
 C.  so minuscule  that they  are unable to be detected  
 D.  minuscule enough  not  to be undetectable  
 E.  minuscule enough  so that  one cannot detect them

A review of our answer choices shows us that we need to choose between “so minuscule” and “minuscule enough.” We also have to choose between “are unable to be detected” and “to be undetectable.”

There is an idiom at play here to a small degree. “So X that Y” is an idiom, and “so X as to be Y” is also idiomatic. However, “so X so that Y” is not idiomatic.  Option A cannot be the correct answer.

It might be easy to see the “enough” and want to focus on idioms related to “enough,” but in fact, this word is actually asking us to consider the logical meaning of the sentence. “So minuscule” has a different meaning than “minuscule enough.” “Enough” implies that there is a certain level that must be met, a specific quantity. For example, “I have enough gasoline to get to the grocery store” means that there is sufficient gasoline to go a certain distance and not necessarily any farther. “So” means “to such a degree.” “I have so much gasoline I could travel across the state” does not indicate any kind of level or threshold. There is a fundamental difference between “minuscule enough as to be undetectable” and “so minuscule as to be undetectable.” It makes more sense for the emphasis of this sentence to be on the degree of miniscule versus a threshold of minuscule.  Options D and E cannot be the best answers.

Option C uses “so minuscule that they are unable to be detected.” This combination actually changes the meaning of the sentence, because this is saying that quarks and bosons have an inability for detection. This sentence is also less concise than Option B.  Logically, Option C cannot be the best answer.

We have successfully eliminated four answer choices.  Option B is the best answer.

DinoPen · Answer

I said C.

I eliminated A. The use of "so that they" is the wrong use of action. 
Eliminated B: The use of "as to be undetectable" is idiomatically incorrect. 
Eliminated D: Double negative -- changes the meaning of the sentence
Eliminated E: "so that one" becomes the main subject. I believe that this changes the structure of the sentence, shifting the focus from 'quarks and bosons' to 'one'

philipssonicare · Answer

Quarks and bosons are  so minuscule so that they can be undetectable  even with an electron microscope.

A. so minuscule so that they can be undetectable
The meaning is  adverb minuscule with the result that they can be undetectable . This meaning is fine. Using the structure  so X so  seems awkward; the only cases I know of it not sounding awkward are  so good so far  and  so much so that .
Keep A at the moment
 A

B. so minuscule as to be undetectable
As in A, the first  so  is an adverb adding emphasis. It follows the structure  so X as to Y . This is a much more succinct structure than what is offered in option A with  as to  conveying the same information as  so that they can  (including applying to both quarks and bosons, despite not having a plurality indicator - I don't know how to formally express this).  as to  also removes the awkward repetition of  so 
 B

C. so minuscule that they are unable to be detected
This is a much clearer expression than what is offered in A, whist maintaining meaning. I feel that this structure, less formal than the structure in B, makes the meaning clearer and I would use it to write something to a general audience. But the GMAT tests sentence correction for advanced English readers, and B is likely preferred by the test takers for its brevity
 B

D. minuscule enough not to be undetectable
 not...undetectable  is a double negative, with the meaning  minuscule enough to be detectable . Why emphasise that something can only be detected when it's small? Poor logic. Use of  enough  as an adverb seems less formal, if not colloquial.
 B

E. minuscule enough so that one cannot detect them
As above with  enough . This mixed with use of  one  as a pronoun, a use that I feel is formal, is jarring. It feels like a phrasing that I would've used in school to sound smart (all the while butchering the basics).
 B

NandishSS · Answer

so minuscule so that redundancy of so -- Incorrect

In this context so as is not the correct choice. -- Incorrect

Correctly convey the meaning

not to be undetectable is bit awkward can use, to be undetectable. Hence Incorrect

Quarks and bosons plural and we cannot use one here. Hence Incorrect

ektakdawla · Answer

Raxit85 · Answer

Quarks and bosons are so minuscule so that they can be undetectable even with an electron microscope.

X & Y (types of particles) are so small so that they can be undetectablr even with some type of microscope.- idiomatically incorrect & changes the meaning.

A.  so minuscule so that they  can be undetectable - Same as above
B. so minuscule as to be undetectable - so.. as to be idiomatically correct but doubtful in meaning. Still hold it
C. so minuscule that they are unable to be detected - particles are so tiny that they are not able to be detected by some instrument. Usage of to be fishy but hold it.
D. minuscule  enough not to be  undetectable - idiomatically wrong
E. minuscule  enough so that one cannot detect them  - unnecessarily pronoun (one)is used & overall distorts the meaning of the sentence.
I'd go with C rather than B because usage of to be undetectable, which does not provide the sense of purpose. Let empowergmatverbal throw some more light on the same.

Imo. C

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

You were really close,  DinoPen ! Check out the official explanation for more details on how to tackle this question - it was a tricky one, for sure!

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

Thanks for your detailed explanations,  philipssonicare . I'm not sure which option you chose as the correct answer, though - what was supposed to be the difference between the "A" and "B" you added to the end of each option?

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

You were very close,  NandishSS ! Check out the official explanation to see how to tackle this one. It was an incredibly tricky question for everyone!

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

You were so close,  Raxit85 ! It seems that this question stumped everyone! Check out the official explanation for more details on how to tackle this question.

philipssonicare · Answer

EMPOWERgmatVerbal 
I chose B. PoE. I didn't strike out A immediately: it is bad, but not so bad that it should be completely ignored. B was then preferable to A. And then B was preferable to every other choice.

Are you able to clarify what I wrote for B: (including applying to both quarks and bosons, despite not having a plurality indicator - I don't know how to formally express this)?

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

Thank you for the added detail,  philipssonicare . I see now what you were getting at, but the explanation you gave didn't clearly state in option B that you thought it was the correct choice. It looks more like you were considering it, but never decided fully that it was the answer.

In the future, maybe add a short comment at the end that states which one you chose in the end? That way it's clearer to both me and other readers.

800Dreamer · Answer

Hi  EMPOWERgmatVerbal ,

Are "they" in A and C and "them" in E ambiguous?
My reasoning is that it is not clear as to what these both terms are referring to. Is it Quarks and bosons or only Quarks or only bosons?

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

Thanks for your question  800Dreamer !

Since both pronouns "they" and "them" are plural, they can only refer back to both quarks AND bosons. If you were only referring back to one of those items, you would need to use the singular pronoun "it." There are also no other nouns before the pronouns that they could refer back to, so they are not too vague.

I hope that helps! Feel free to tag us at  EMPOWERgmatVerbal  if you have any other questions!

Hahahehe · Answer

EMPOWERgmatVerbal  ,

I came across another question:
Scientifically, “frost” is the word for water vapor that is so frozen with cold water as to develop a solid’s character.

A. that is so frozen with cold water as to develop a solid’s character

B. that is so frozen with cold water that it develops the character of a solid

C. that is frozen with cold water enough to develop solid characteristics

D. frozen enough with cold water so as to develop the character of a solid

E. frozen with cold water so much as to develop a solid character

Where option A is rejected, citing that "to develop" implies human intention. But isn't the same case applicable here? Are quarks and bosons are intentionally trying to be undetectable?

Kindly help

Kushchokhani · Answer

EMPOWERgmatVerbal   EMPOWERgmatRichC

I also have the same doubt. Is it that this ques belongs to Pack 14 so it is to be preferred over this topic?

The doubt is supported by  official ques . Basis the official ques, is this topic still relevant?

I understand that quarks and bosons are living creatures so they may have intentions but per context of this topic, do they really intend to be undetectable?

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.

Quarks and bosons are so minuscule so that they can be undetectable

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

Quarks and bosons are so minuscule so that they can be undetectable

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