Sentence Correction Chapter 9

[krunal.patel]

Hello MGMAT forum,

In Problem Set, Question no. 7c (Page 174):
"Faced with the recurrence of natural disasters, such as floods and wildfires, many state governments have imposed significant taxes on their citizens SO AS TO prepare for the next calamity."

I can't comprehend why the sentence above is wrong in using the idiom "SO AS TO".
FYI, Answer Key indicates: (so as to do) WRONG
If anyone has figured this out, can you please share on the forum?

Thanks!

[tim]

There's nothing to "figure out"; that's the annoying thing about idioms. :) You just have to memorize the rule for each idiom and when it can and can't be used..

[jainpiyushjain]

I marked that particular statement 7{c} as suspect because according to 5 edition SC guide on page 161, the sentence She drank coffee so as to stay awake is placed under suspect as well.

Can someone please resolve my ambiguity.

Thank you

[tim]

what is the ambiguity? it seems you and the original poster both agree there is something fishy about this idiom. that should be enough to get rid of it if you have no other grammar issues you can use to distinguish between two answer choices..

[jainpiyushjain]

what is the ambiguity? it seems you and the original poster both agree there is something fishy about this idiom. that should be enough to get rid of it if you have no other grammar issues you can use to distinguish between two answer choices..

Please correct me If I am wrong. As per the SC handbook, idioms labelled suspect are the expressions that the GMAT seems to avoid, but sometimes grammatically correct.

Coming back to my doubt

Suspect but correct usage page (pg. 161): She drank coffee so as to stay awake.

The answer of 7c (pg. 187): ..have imposed significant taxes on their citizens so as to raise funds in advance..
WRONG (so as to do)

The two idiom usage seems similar to me and hence, I am not able to understand why the answer is wrong instead of suspect/correct.

[Willy]

I read this discussion and thought it is only about idiom but then I searched about 'so as to' and found something interesting by Ron on this forum. But that something interesting made me confused a bit.

Anyhow, here are the two links from where I will quoting what Ron says about 'so as to'

so-as-to-t16381.html

post58403.html

"so as to..." is certainly a legitimate construction, but you have to know how to use it.
since it isn't followed by a whole clause -- it's just followed by a verb in infinitive form -- the subject of that infinitive verb must be the same as the subject of the preceding part. for instance, if i say i bought a bunch of blankets so as to avoid paying too much for heating bills, then that makes sense, because i (the preceding subject) am the one who is going to avoid paying too much for heat.

Now, if I consider the following example

She drank coffee so as to stay awake.

This example makes perfect sense to me according to the above stated rules by Ron.

Now, lets move to another example from the above given links,

Congress is debating a bill requiring certain employers to provide workers with unpaid leave so as to care for sick or newborn children. => INCORRECT

In the explanation to the above incorrect example, Ron says,

this is a whole different issue. in the construction "so as to", there is no change of subject, and so there's an implication that the subject is the same as the subject of the previous clause/action.

that's a big issue here, because the only subjects of actions in the previous clauses are "congress" and "certain employers". therefore, the sentence is implying that one of these two entities is actually going to care for sick or newborn children! not good.

in this sentence, "so as to" doesn't work, because "workers" (the people who actually have to care for the children) isn't the preceding subject.
according to this sentence -- depending on how you process it -- either congress or the employers would be the ones taking care of the children. that doesn't make sense.

Well up-to this point I am very much clear.

Now, lets move to the example in the very first post in this thread, i.e. the example that made me bit confused.

"Faced with the recurrence of natural disasters, such as floods and wildfires, many state governments have imposed significant taxes on their citizens SO AS TO prepare for the next calamity."

From the above stated rule by Ron, i.e. the subject of that infinitive verb must be the same as the subject of the preceding part.

Case 1 - Here, isn't it clear that the subject of the infinitive verb (prepare) is state governments? That is state government is preparing for next calamity because that is what the role of government to be ready. If it is so, then why it is considered wrong?

Case 2 - OMG!! when I've typed this much, a new thought just struck me. Now let me represent these as case 1 and case 2. There is ambiguity on "who is preparing for the next calamity" is it 'state government' or 'citizens'? Is this the reason why this example is considered wrong?

Please confirm, which case is right? If both are wrong, please explain a bit more on this issue.

Thank you for your patience and really sorry for such a long post.

[jlucero]

Willy,

Everything you posted is 100% accurate. And I would make a guess that the author was thinking of that ambiguity when they marked this as incorrect. However, I'd agree with those of you who said this should be marked as suspect instead of wrong because it seems as though the subject of the sentence is also the subject of the infinitive. Many governments have imposed taxes IN ORDER TO prepare for the next calamity. But at the end of the day, you would be highly unlikely to find such a construction in a correct answer choice, so mark it as suspect but look for other grammatical errors.

[Willy]

Thank you Joe Lucero. Your reply was a big relief!

[jlucero]

Glad it helped!

[peter89]

I have a question with 9e : "...state govts have imposed taxes on their citizens to raise funds in advance of the next calamity." This option is marked as correct, but does there exist a similar sentence in which this could be suspect if subject that is doing the action is ambiguous (i.e. the committee has imposed measures on its team owners to preserve league parity.) Is there ambiguity that the committee is trying to preserve league parity itself as opposed to mandating its owners to do so; in the latter, the clause 'team owners to preserve league parity' is thought to be as a complete thought in which owners are doing the preserving. Is there ambiguity here? Thank you.

[tim]

no. "team owners to preserve league parity" is not a complete thought. "to preserve league parity" is a reason for doing something, so it can only refer to the measures that are imposed, i.e. answering why the measures were imposed..