when "one" is used to mean "a random person", it doesn't need an antecedent.
THIS kind of "one" couldn't possibly have an antecedent, anyway -- the whole point is that it could refer to anyone at all.
when you are talking about antecedents, i think you're confusing this kind of "one" with a totally different kind of thing (e.g., This store has large bottles of my favorite soda in the cooler, so I will buy one for the drive.)
“Should The subject of "can" and "be able to" be animate?please certify,thanks!”
I'm not totally sure what you mean by "animate" here. Sounds to me like 'person or animal', but that's just a guess.
In any case, not necessarily, because it's possible for an inanimate object to have capabilities. (This bullet is able to pierce Kevlar. Because the snow reflects incoming sunlight, the Siberian landscape is unable to retain much heat. Etc.)
The question you should really ask yourself is, "Are we talking about something that X can do?"
If the answer to this question is yes -- regardless of whether X is a person or an animal -- then "(un)able" / "(in)ability" should be fine.
If you're talking about something that someone can do to or with X, then you shouldn't use those words.
That's definitely the case here -- we're talking about whether people can distinguish the shifts, not about what the shifts themselves can do.
(b) "so gradual so that..." is not a correct idiom. instead you should say "so gradual that..."
(c) is substantially more wordy than the correct answer (a).
i don't see anything strictly ungrammatical in (c).
as i said upthread, i don't see anything ungrammatical about choice (c), so i don't think splitting is going to do you any good here.
the only difference i see between (a) and (c) is a somewhat substantial difference in wordiness / concision. (i.e., "unable to be distinguished" is 4 words that mean the exact same thing as the 1 word "indistinguishable")
i also find something a bit awkward about the use of "unable" to describe something that's not actually an inability of the subject. here's what i mean:
this plant is unable to perform photosynthesis.
legitimate, because this actually describes an inability of the plant itself.
this sentence:
they (= major economic shifts) are unable to be distinguished...
i don't like this, because we're not actually talking about an "inability" possessed by the economic shifts themselves.
if we'd said something like "economic shifts are unable to destroy your equity", then i'd find that more appealing.
(e) is unidiomatic. you can't mix "enough" and "so that".
the correct idiom is "enough to...". you can't "double up" with another idiom.
as for (d), i'm not sure whether you're allowed to insert "not" between "enough" and "to".
i don't think that you are.
方案推理
“提高最低工资”--不增加失业率（注意从"if it is raised, [unemployment will increase] (because they will no longer be able to afford to employ as many workers)"辨清目的）
A选项：Correct. 对于任何一个低于生活保障的工资的职位来说，保留和发现这个职位的员工的成本和增加工资的成本相同。很显然，本选项表明，提高工资并不等于增加成本，自然也就不会增加失业率。（读懂选项意思即可明白提高最低工资不会有影响）
A: 被视作epic的因该是family legends，【挖隧道】这个事情 只是legends 其中之一。 同时one of the proudest of family legends修饰谁不清楚（离修饰的东西太远了）
B: 同A的原因1
C：同A原因1（it 指代的挖隧道≠epic） 原因2：用ving，表示这里挖隧道的是Bosnian Muslims，然而 挖隧道的因该是Bosnian Muslims的前辈。
D：同A原因1 ，不过解释没说as an epic的位置有没有问题，感觉没有问题吧。
C： 应该是 households are still nearly 5 million，应该是 households 的 《数量》 是 5 million
E: 动词里 flow out from 可（查了字典），这里是名词 flow from就成，无out。 官方解释是：still要是当时间指示词，得放在必动词后边（like正确答案）
。如果作为类似于nevertheless的词（官方也没说做啥成分，他说something like nevertheless)
，就跟despite重复。
扫描二维码，直接登录
when "one" is used to mean "a random person", it doesn't need an antecedent.
THIS kind of "one" couldn't possibly have an antecedent, anyway -- the whole point is that it could refer to anyone at all.
when you are talking about antecedents, i think you're confusing this kind of "one" with a totally different kind of thing (e.g., This store has large bottles of my favorite soda in the cooler, so I will buy one for the drive.)