There was not sufficient evidence to prove that the suspect had any

Question

There was  not sufficient evidence to prove that the suspect had anything to do with  the crime.

A. not sufficient evidence to prove that the suspect had anything to do with

B. not sufficient evidence that proved that the suspect had anything to do with

C. insufficient evidence to prove that the suspect had anything to do with the

D. insufficient evidence that proved that the suspect had nothing to do with

E. insufficient evidence to prove that the suspect had anything to do with

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

There was  not sufficient evidence to prove that the suspect had anything to do with  the crime.

A. not sufficient evidence to prove that the suspect had anything to do with

Incorrect.

This answer choice is stylistically flawed. Look for an answer choice that is more concise.

B. not sufficient evidence that proved that the suspect had anything to do with

Incorrect.

This answer choice is stylistically flawed. The two-word phrase  not sufficient  can be expressed more concisely.

In addition, this answer choice changes the meaning of the original sentence. It is not that the lack of evidence proved that the suspect was not guilty, it's that he couldn't be proven guilty. This may seem like nit-picking, but you should get used to it. The GMAT Verbal tests attention to detail.

C. insufficient evidence to prove that the suspect had anything to do with the

Incorrect.

This answer choice does not fit into the original sentence. This answer choice ends with the word  the , and the original sentence continues after the underlined part with the word  the . The result is a sequence of two  the :

There was insufficient evidence to prove that the suspect had anything to do with the the crime.

D. insufficient evidence that proved that the suspect had nothing to do with

Incorrect.

Although this answer choice corrects the original stylistic flaw, by replacing  not sufficient  with the more concise  insufficient , it changes the meaning of the original sentence.

It is not that the lack of evidence proved that the suspect was not guilty, it's that he couldn't be proven guilty. This may seem like nit-picking, but you should get used to it. The GMAT Verbal tests attention to detail.

E. insufficient evidence to prove that the suspect had anything to do with

This answer choice corrects the original mistake of redundancy.  Insufficient  is preferable to  not sufficient  as it implies the same meaning in one word instead of two.

Sumi1010 · Answer

"Insufficient" is concise word for "Not sufficient"
Hence,  choices A and B  can be eliminated for the redundancy.

The sentence talks about the specific crime and not just any crime. Hence , "the crime" is better than "crime". 
We can eliminate  choice E  too.

It's between C and D now.

Let's write the sentences fully. 
C.  There was  insufficient evidence to prove that the suspect had anything to do with  the crime. 
 Looks correct. 
D.  There was  insufficient evidence that proved that the suspect had nothing to do with  the crime. 
 Watch out the meaning. 
 Two negatives negate each other to be a positive. 
It says "  insufficient evidence  that proved that the suspect had  nothing  to do with the crime." 
We can imply from " insufficient  evidence for  nothing  to do" that there was " sufficient  evidence for  something  to do"
This is not the intended meaning. Thus, this choice is incorrect.

Thus,  C  is correct.

AkashM · Answer

Eliminate A and B because insufficient is better than not sufficient. 
Eliminate D because nothing implies to the contrary of what the sentence wants to say. In simple words, it should be anything. 
Eliminate C because it has an extra the at the end. At first it looks like a typo, but then that is the only differentiator between C and E.

E remains and is the correct answer.

winterschool · Answer

There was not sufficient evidence to prove that the suspect had anything to do with the crime.

A.  not sufficient  evidence to prove that the suspect had anything to do with  Incorrect

not sufficient can be replaced by insufficient; hence removes redundant error

B.  not sufficient  evidence  that  proved that the suspect had anything to do with  Incorrect

this choice is redundant - not sufficient can be replaced by insufficient
that uses before proved changes meaning- .....not sufficient evidence to what?

C. insufficient evidence to prove that the suspect had anything to do with  the   Incorrect

double the creates redundant problem

D. insufficient evidence  that  proved that the suspect had nothing to do with  Incorrect

that uses before proved changes meaning- .....not sufficient evidence to what?

E.  insufficient evidence to prove that the suspect had anything to do with   Correct

I think Answer E

LaveenaPanchal · Answer

Official explanation is not at all impressive. How much wordiness does "not sufficient" adds to insufficiency.

I hope there is some other explanation related to meaning aspect.

@experts can anyone please add some different reason for preference for E over A

Posted from my mobile device

Sumi1010 · Answer

In SC problems, the correct choice should 
 1. Have no grammatical error.
2. Preserve the meaning of the original sentence. 
 
Keeping these in mind, let's have look on the two choices:

There was  not sufficient evidence to prove that the suspect had anything to do with  the crime.
B. not sufficient  evidence that proved  that the suspect had anything to do with
 Even if we overlook the concision (i.e. insufficient for not sufficient), this choice says that the evidence PROVED xxx ( i.e. questions the "capability" of the evidence. Consider the possibility that the sufficient evidence was there, but didn't prove xxx) . The original sentence just implies that there was not sufficient evidence TO PROVE xxx (i.e. questions the availability of the evidence). 
E. insufficient  evidence to prove  that the suspect had anything to do with
 Concise + grammatically correct + keeps the original meaning.

LaveenaPanchal · Answer

In my previous post, I meant to ask the reason for preference of E over A.

Sumi1010  - what is the original meaning? Its given by Option A right? Then why Option E over A.

Secondly if we go meaning wise like you said Option A questions the availability of evidence & Option E questions the sufficiency of evidence.

How do we judge the intended meaning in such cases?

Posted from my mobile device

Sumi1010 · Answer

The choice A alone does not give "original meaning" (provided the sentence is fully underlined). The original meaning comes from the entire sentence and not just by a sentence fragment (i.e. underlined only). 
 
The only reason is concision. 
Concision is not as important as is grammar, but if the choice offers concision(without grammatical error), there should be no hesitation to prefer the choice. 
 
Choices A and E have same intended meaning . Note the part "evidence to prove xxx". 
Both have no grammatical error too. Hence, the deciding factor is concision.

There was not sufficient evidence to prove that the suspect had any

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

There was not sufficient evidence to prove that the suspect had any

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