Can someone elaborate on the distinction between the two, I am a little iffy on when to know which one is correct.

The category 1 to 5 rating known as the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale provides an estimate of a hurricane’s potential of destroying or damaging property, and is primarily determined from wind speed; a category 5 storm has wind speeds so high as to blow away small buildings, completely destroy mobile homes, and cause severe window and door damage.

a. of destroying or damaging property, and is primarily determined from wind speed; a category 5 storm has wind speeds so high as

b. to destroy or damage property, and is primarily determined from wind speed; a category 5 storm has wind speeds high enough

c. of destroying or damaging property, and is primarily determined by wind speed; a category 5 storm has wind speeds so high as

d. to destroy or damage property, and is primarily determined by wind speed; a category 5 storm has wind speeds high enough

e. to destroy or damage property, and is primarily determined by wind speed; a category 5 storm has wind speeds so high as

IMO E

Interestingly, we've recently discovered two contradictory OG explanations on this issue. A problem in the 10th edition says "so x as to y" is correct, and a different problem in the 11th edition says it is not a correct idiom. Maybe something in the 12th edition will clear up the discrepancy. :)

We think the "rejection" of the entire idiom in the 11th edition was merely poor wording; we think the writer was actually trying to say it just wasn't correct usage for that particular sentence.

Regardless, both of the idioms you mention are grammatically fine, but they have slightly different meanings.

"So X as to Y" means something is SO (big, strong, slow, whatever, but something kind of extreme) that it actually causes something else to happen - something that wouldn't ordinarily happen. Normal wind wouldn't blow away small buildings, but category 5 winds can.

"X is (high, low, whatever) enough to Y" is more like a definition. "Cat 5 winds are high enough to blow away small houses" = the definition of Cat 5 winds is the winds that are high enough to blow away small houses.

The original sentence was not defining Cat 5 winds based on what the winds would / could do. Rather it was conveying that the extreme winds are SO strong that they result in some very bad things that wouldn't ordinarily occur under more normal wind conditions.

Having said all of that - I've only seen "so X as to Y" tested a few times, and I've never seen the other variant tested (on the real test). So I wouldn't worry about it too much. :)

_________________
Stacey Koprince
Instructor
Director of Online Community
ManhattanGMAT

ISn't high/ enough redundant? and to destroy is prefered to distroying

a. of destroying or damaging property, and is primarily determined from wind speed; a category 5 storm has wind speeds so high as
: wrong Idiom: estimate to destroy

b. to destroy or damage property, and is primarily determined from wind speed; a category 5 storm has wind speeds high enough
Wrong idiom: determine by

c. of destroying or damaging property, and is primarily determined by wind speed; a category 5 storm has wind speeds so high as
: wrong Idiom: estimate to destroy

d. to destroy or damage property, and is primarily determined by wind speed; a category 5 storm has wind speeds high enough
GOOD: emphasizing the later part so “enough to” is correct usage
e. to destroy or damage property, and is primarily determined by wind speed; a category 5 storm has wind speeds so high as
:wrong: stacey’s explanation

Yes to both of the above.

The initial conversation had leapt past the first split: "to destroy" is correct here. This properly follows from the word "potential."

We also do want the idiom "determined by," not "determined from."

Wait a sec... Isnt the OA E?

Not unless the OA is wrong. D is the best answer here.

First of all, I respect everyone's opinion. I do understand an inevitable ambiguity in this problem.

However, option 'E' is the BEST ONE, which really makes sense in given scenario. I differ from Stacey's opinion. Stacey said exactly opposite to what I think, and what I am going to explain as follows:!

"x is enough to y" : It doesn't define anything but instead informs a specific case of Category 5. As we all know that this is not the case. Here author tries to define the extreme nature of Category 5. If we use this idiom, it may lead to believe that Category 5 may be incapable of destroying buildings in some cases. Contrary to this, Author tries to convey the severe nature of category 5 hurricane. He basically tries to define it by a way, which emphasize on its severe nature.


"so x as to y": It is only an appropriate way of defining the severe nature of Category 5: It certainly falls in the degree that is capable of destroying the buildings for sure. Hence, by using this, an author defines the category 5 with an emphasize on the extreme strength of the hurricane to destroy buildings.

-Thanks.

Sorry. Remember, the GMAT makes the rules, so an alternate opinion - even if it is supported by a non-GMAT grammar book - is just an opinion. Make sure that you learn how the GMAT writers use idioms - even if you disagree - because they are ultimately the ones who give you your score..

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor

Question 1 - Is "Determine From" always wrong on the GMAT?

Question 2 - If above = No, then what are the nuances involved between "determine by" and "determine from"

"Determine by" is generally the idiom you should use on the GMAT.

_________________
Jamie Nelson
ManhattanGMAT Instructor

Hi Jamie,

I just came across a post here by Ron where he says "determine from" is correct as well :(

turning-away-from-literary-realism-to-write-romantic-stories-t5815.html

** 4th post from the bottom.

Good catch, rikky. I would never argue with Ron! I think you've found the answer to your question through that thread and Ron's post. :-)

_________________
Jamie Nelson
ManhattanGMAT Instructor