Far From Consistent: A Two-Blank Trap
A two-blank Text Completion reads: 'Far from being ___, the new policy’s exceptions were applied so ___ that even its architects could not predict which firms would qualify.' Blank (i): (A) consistent (B) arbitrary (C) transparent. Blank (ii): (D) uniformly (E) erratically (F) predictably. A test-taker chooses C/E, reasoning that a nontransparent policy would be applied erratically, and that 'even its architects' suggests insider confusion. She rejects A/E because 'consistent' seems too obvious a contrast with 'erratically.'
1. Which pair is correct, and what is the logical role of 'so ___ that even its architects could not predict'?
Read the worked answer
A/E. The second clause defines the blank: if even the policy’s architects could not predict who would qualify, the application was erratic. 'Far from being' then requires the opposite of erratic in blank (i): consistent. The 'so...that' construction makes the second blank the consequence, so the first blank must be the quality the policy lacked. C/E fails because transparency is about disclosure, not consistency; a transparent policy could still be erratic, and an opaque one could be applied uniformly.
2. Why is B/E a contradiction, and what does that reveal about using 'far from' as a marker?
Read the worked answer
B/E would say: 'Far from being arbitrary, the exceptions were applied so erratically...' That is self-contradictory: 'far from arbitrary' means not arbitrary, while 'erratically' means arbitrary in application. 'Far from' is not a generic contrast marker; it negates the quality named in the first blank and predicts that the second clause will illustrate the opposite. The correct pair must therefore be semantically opposed, not merely both negative or both positive.