At one time, the majestic American chestnut was so prevalent that it was said a squirrel could jump from tree to tree without once touching the ground between New York State and Georgia.

(A) so prevalent that it was said a squirrel could
(B) so prevalent that a squirrel was said that it could
(C) so prevalent for a squirrel to be said to be able to
(D) prevalent enough that it was said a squirrel could
(E) prevalent enough for a squirrel to be said to be able to

OA is A.

How come it doesn't require a "that" between "said" and "a squirrel"?
Under what circumstances can "that" be omitted when a clause is introduced?
Thanks in advance.

you're going to hate this answer, but ... because it just doesn't. :)

that's actually a serious answer: in the majority of uses like this (she believed (that)..., it has been said (that)... etc.), it's acceptable to omit the word 'that' if the construction's meaning is still clear and unambiguous.

in this case, an extra factor in favor of omitting 'that' is the occurrence of the word 'that' just a few words away; a sentence containing the words '...so prevalent that it was said that...' would be awfully ugly.



see above. the cases in which it can be eliminated are many and varied.

a thought that should provide some consolation: i'm pretty certain that the gmat won't include a problem that hangs on the presence vs. absence of the word 'that' alone. note that, in this problem, the presence/absence of 'that' isn't really an issue, because all the choices except a and d can be eliminated on other grounds of grammar/usage. both of those remaining choices - a and d - omit the word 'that', so you don't have to make that decision yourself. (notice that the choice between a and d comes down to the rhetorical meaning of those two choices.)

I picked B (although it sounds awkward) because I thought that "that" couldn't be omitted.
Hmm...I will avoid picking the answer based on the omission of "that".
Thanks.

At one time, the majestic American chestnut was so prevalent that it was said a squirrel could jump from tree to tree without once touching the ground between New York State and Georgia.

Can you please let me know what does IT refers to in the sentence.

It here does not need to refer to anything.

example: It is my pleasure to invite you or It was a terrible mistakes.

if you have
it was ADJ ...
or
it has been/was/is said/believed...

then the "it" doesn't have to stand for anything. you should just memorize this as an idiomatic construction.

"it was a terrible mistake", though, would be incorrect unless "it" actually stood for some noun.

_________________
Being well-dressed gives a feeling of inward tranquillity [that] religion is powerless to bestow.
C.F. Forbes

Thank you for your Explanation Ron!.
May I ask you a question.

What is wrong with B?

Is it because too much "that" in a sentence?

(B) so prevalent that a squirrel was said that it could...

"Too much 'that'", as you suggested, is not the best reason to rule out this answer choice.

In this answer choice, the clause "a squirrel was said that it could" does not make logical sense. How can you a say a squirrel? Furthermore, it is structurally awkward. Answer choice A improves on this structure.

Have a great New Year!

- Dan P

Hi Ron - I was able to eliminate all the option except for A and D and finally Chose A. Could you pls let me know what's the difference between (below) and when to use former or the latter?

so prevalent that
&
prevalent enough that

I have seen similar question in which one option had "so likely that" and another option " equally likely that"

Cheers

I have not understood why B is wrong. PLs help to explain. What is wrong with "squirel was said" ?
" I am said to be sensitive to a business situation" is wrong?
Pls, help.

Hei, here is another reliable explanation for your query:How come it doesn't require a "that" between "said" and "a squirrel" in A?

In case of a noun clause-a clause that can be identified asking a verb by WHAT- we can omit the conjunction THAT. To fairly grasp my words, go through the following example:

I know that there are things that never have been funny, and never will be.

What we know?

there are things...........

So, this clause is noun clause. we can omit the THAT here. that is :
I know there are things that never have been funny, and never will be.

CAUTION: we can not omit later THAT that comes after things, because it is an adjective clause preceded by a noun or a pronoun. i think u got it. if not then let me know.

notice that your example isn't a proper analogue of the sentence that appears here.
your version contains "to be sensitive" (an infinitive) where the original, incorrect version tries to put an entire clause starting with "that". those are two entirely different constructions, so there's no comparison.

_________________
Being well-dressed gives a feeling of inward tranquillity [that] religion is powerless to bestow.
C.F. Forbes

jahid,



you are being a true gentleman by answering this query, but i'd like to suggest that you check the time/date stamp first; you are answering a post that's more than four years old. (the guy who asked the question probably has his mba by now!)

_________________
Being well-dressed gives a feeling of inward tranquillity [that] religion is powerless to bestow.
C.F. Forbes

At one time, the majestic American chestnut was so prevalent that it was said a squirrel could jump from tree to tree without once touching the ground between New York State and Georgia.

(A) so prevalent that it was said a squirrel could
(B) so prevalent that a squirrel was said that it could
(C) so prevalent for a squirrel to be said to be able to
(D) prevalent enough that it was said a squirrel could
(E) prevalent enough for a squirrel to be said to be able to

Why B is wrong? pls explain.

and I also want to discuss a problem related to B.

what is difference between the two following sentences.

The squirel was said to be able to jump.

The squirel was said that it could jump.