Request for Clarification - SC Question

[naughtyboy]

Hi,
Can somebody explain what is the logic behind the OA here.

A driver's license in one country is not always enough to enable a person to drive in another country legally.

A. A driver's license in one country is not always enough to enable a person to drive in another
country legally.

B. It is not always enough to have a driver's license in one country in order to drive in another
country legally.

C. It is not always enough to have a driver's license in one country for driving in another country
legally.

D. Having a driver's license in one country, it is not always enough in order to drive in another
country legally.

E. A driver's license in one country is not always enough for driving in another country legally.

The OA is A.

[vikram4689]

there is no logic "enough to" is an idiom, one can easily narrow down to A and E but then it is A coz of idiom.

[GMATGuruNY]

Hi,
Can somebody explain what is the logic behind the OA here.

A driver's license in one country is not always enough to enable a person to drive in another country legally.

A. A driver's license in one country is not always enough to enable a person to drive in another
country legally.

B. It is not always enough to have a driver's license in one country in order to drive in another
country legally.

C. It is not always enough to have a driver's license in one country for driving in another country
legally.

D. Having a driver's license in one country, it is not always enough in order to drive in another
country legally.

E. A driver's license in one country is not always enough for driving in another country legally.

The OA is A.

in B and C, it is used as an EXPLETIVE: a placeholder pronoun used to DELAY THE SUBJECT.
The delayed subject is the phrase or clause that FOLLOWS the verb.

In B, it seems to be standing for to have a driver's license in one country in order to drive in another country legally.
Thus, the implied meaning is as follows:
To have a driver's license in one country in order to drive in another country legally is not always enough.
Not enough for what?
Eliminate B.

In C, it seems to be standing for to have a driver's license in one country for driving in another country legally.
Thus, the implied meaning is as follows:
To have a driver's license in one country for driving in another country legally is not always enough.
Not enough for what?
Eliminate C.

In D, having a driver's license seems to be modifying it.
This meaning makes no sense.
Eliminate D.

In E, it is unclear who is driving. Since A makes it clear that a license is not always enough to enable a PERSON to drive, eliminate E.

The correct answer is A.

[vikram4689]

In E, it is unclear who is driving. Since A makes it clear that a license is not always enough to enable a PERSON to drive, eliminate E.

Mitch,
it is a bit hard to digest, most of us ( https://www.beatthegmat.com/driver-s-lic ... 91707.html ) chose E because of its brevity and we thought that "to enable a person to drive" is WORDY and that it is implied that "only a PERSON can DRIVE". This happened because we have faced numerous SCs in which such reasoning was given to us. How to decide when something as common as this is implied and when it is not

[GmatKiss]

Down to A/E, IMO:A