Although the first pulsar, or rapidly spinning collapsed

[RonPurewal]

Is there a difference in meaning between:
1) The first pulsar to be sighted
and
2) The first pulsar sighted

not really ... and that's why you don't (and won't) see a split between those.

[thanghnvn]

Although the first pulsar, or rapidly spinning collapsed star, to be sighted was in the summer of 1967 by graduate student Jocelyn Bell, it had not been announced until February, 1968.

(A) Same

(B) Although not announced until February, 1968, in the summer of 1967 graduate student Jocelyn Bell observed the first pulsar, or rapidly spinning collapsed star, to be sighted.

(C) Although observed by graduate student Jocelyn Bell in the summer of 1967, the discovery of the first sighted pulsar, or rapidly spinning collapsed star, had not been announced before February, 1968.

(D) The first pulsar, or rapidly spinning collapsed star, to be sighted was observed in the summer of 1967 by graduate student Jocelyn Bell, but the discovery was not announced until February, 1968.

(E) The first sighted pulsar, or rapidly spinning collapsed star, was not announced until February, 1968, while it was observed in the summer of 1967 by graduate student Jocelyn Bell.

The OA is D. Is "sighted plusar" better than "to be sighted", since the pulsar has alreadly been sighted?
Meanwhile, what's wrong with choice E? Thanks

VERY clear error in E is that graduate student is not the first person to see the star.

whenever we see a different structure without grammar error, ask ourself is there any distortion in meaning relation between two actions (the actions can be presented by tense verb, verbal without tense-doing,do-ed,and to do , or action noun)

[jlucero]

Although the first pulsar, or rapidly spinning collapsed star, to be sighted was in the summer of 1967 by graduate student Jocelyn Bell, it had not been announced until February, 1968.

(A) Same

(B) Although not announced until February, 1968, in the summer of 1967 graduate student Jocelyn Bell observed the first pulsar, or rapidly spinning collapsed star, to be sighted.

(C) Although observed by graduate student Jocelyn Bell in the summer of 1967, the discovery of the first sighted pulsar, or rapidly spinning collapsed star, had not been announced before February, 1968.

(D) The first pulsar, or rapidly spinning collapsed star, to be sighted was observed in the summer of 1967 by graduate student Jocelyn Bell, but the discovery was not announced until February, 1968.

(E) The first sighted pulsar, or rapidly spinning collapsed star, was not announced until February, 1968, while it was observed in the summer of 1967 by graduate student Jocelyn Bell.

The OA is D. Is "sighted plusar" better than "to be sighted", since the pulsar has alreadly been sighted?
Meanwhile, what's wrong with choice E? Thanks

VERY clear error in E is that graduate student is not the first person to see the star.

whenever we see a different structure without grammar error, ask ourself is there any distortion in meaning relation between two actions (the actions can be presented by tense verb, verbal without tense-doing,do-ed,and to do , or action noun)

I think that is the correct meaning of the sentence here. There's a lot of other discussion here on why E is wrong.

[AbhilashM94]

Ron,

Is there a tense issue in (C) w/ had not been

is had really necessary?

[RonPurewal]

Ron,

Is there a tense issue in (C) w/ had not been

is had really necessary?

You're right; "had not been" is incorrect in that choice. Should be "was not".

[thanghnvn]

Although the first pulsar, or rapidly spinning collapsed star, to be sighted was in the summer of 1967 by graduate student Jocelyn Bell, it had not been announced until February, 1968.

(A) Same

(B) Although not announced until February, 1968, in the summer of 1967 graduate student Jocelyn Bell observed the first pulsar, or rapidly spinning collapsed star, to be sighted.

(C) Although observed by graduate student Jocelyn Bell in the summer of 1967, the discovery of the first sighted pulsar, or rapidly spinning collapsed star, had not been announced before February, 1968.

(D) The first pulsar, or rapidly spinning collapsed star, to be sighted was observed in the summer of 1967 by graduate student Jocelyn Bell, but the discovery was not announced until February, 1968.

(E) The first sighted pulsar, or rapidly spinning collapsed star, was not announced until February, 1968, while it was observed in the summer of 1967 by graduate student Jocelyn Bell.

The OA is D. Is "sighted plusar" better than "to be sighted", since the pulsar has alreadly been sighted?
Meanwhile, what's wrong with choice E? Thanks

past perfect is used to show an action happening before and continue into a point of past time. in choice D, simple past is used. what do we learn from this usage of simple past? pls, explain more

[CrystalSpringston]

The OA is D. Is "sighted plusar" better than "to be sighted", since the pulsar has alreadly been sighted?

no, 'to be sighted' is better for at least two reasons.

(1) 'first NOUN to be VERBed' is generally the preferred form in discussing the results of human efforts/actions/interference/perception/etc., while 'first VERBed NOUN' is generally used to indicate inherent qualities of the noun.
for instance, the following sentence is preferred:
henry bishop was the first musician to be knighted by a british monarch. --> knighting is performed by humans
the following is NOT preferred:
henry bishop was the first knighted musician in britain. --> this makes it seem as though being 'knighted' is an inherent quality with which henry bishop was born, or that he acquired it naturally/accidentally in some other way

(2) the word 'sighted' means 'having the sense of sight', so this sentence also contains the amusing alternative interpretation of referring to a pulsar that can actually see.

Meanwhile, what's wrong with choice E? Thanks

first of all, the word 'discovery' is missing. that's a crucial shift in meaning: it's the discovery, not the pulsar itself, that was 'announced'.
also, the word 'while' - which is sometimes used to indicate contrast - creates a strange ambiguity here: on first reading, it appears to suggest that the announcement (which took place in '68) happened during the summer of '67; this is the usual sense of 'while' occurring in this place in a sentence. (normally, if used to mark contrast, 'while' appears in front of a sentence.)

Hi Ron，I failed to understand the error of "while" based on your explanation. If while functioned as a contrast here, I think it described that the annoucement was in 1968 but the observation was in 1967. It seemed quite fine here...
Pls help me . because I am not a native speaker...
Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

if 'while' is used for contrast, then it indicates that contrast IN ADDITION TO simultaneity. it's specifically used to describe two contrasting things that are simultaneously true.

yes that's awfully specific, but we can afford that kind of specificity because there are plenty of other contrast transitions (whereas, but, although, even though, yet, etc.) to describe situations that don't fit the 'simultaneity' criterion.

[CrystalSpringston]

if 'while' is used for contrast, then it indicates that contrast IN ADDITION TO simultaneity. it's specifically used to describe two contrasting things that are simultaneously true.

yes that's awfully specific, but we can afford that kind of specificity because there are plenty of other contrast transitions (whereas, but, although, even though, yet, etc.) to describe situations that don't fit the 'simultaneity' criterion.

Ron, good to learn that this SIMULTANEITY property of "WHILE". On the context, it is obviously not a suitable conjuction here.

Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

yes.

[RichaChampion]

if 'while' is used for contrast, then it indicates that contrast IN ADDITION TO simultaneity. it's specifically used to describe two contrasting things that are simultaneously true.

yes that's awfully specific, but we can afford that kind of specificity because there are plenty of other contrast transitions (whereas, but, although, even though, yet, etc.) to describe situations that don't fit the 'simultaneity' criterion.

Ron sir you are too great. I have already scored 740 and not trying to cross 760+ as i will be applying to PHD in tier 1 Business schools. believe me this time I am only studying your comments and discussions in SC and this is altogether new learning curve for me. Thank you so much for bringing priceless value in our lives. We all students are grateful to you.

Thank You so much sir.

[aflaamM589]

Ron is wonderful.
Every time he replies my post, i always fall short of words to thank him.
I think those words just don't exist in vocabulary.
God bless you Ron.
God bless you!

[RonPurewal]

Ron sir you are too great. I have already scored 740 and not trying to cross 760+ as i will be applying to PHD in tier 1 Business schools. believe me this time I am only studying your comments and discussions in SC and this is altogether new learning curve for me. Thank you so much for bringing priceless value in our lives. We all students are grateful to you.

Thank You so much sir.

well, thanks for the kind words -- i appreciate it.

[Neko_Yin]

Ron,

Is there a tense issue in (C) w/ had not been

is had really necessary?

You're right; "had not been" is incorrect in that choice. Should be "was not".

Hi Ron,
I always look for a past time to justify the use of the past perfect tense. And in "it had not been announced until February 1968", I found a past time 1968, which made me think "had not been" is correct.
However, several questions like this one proved that I was wrong. I think maybe I made a mistake of focusing on a only part of the time frame and missing the whole. But I'm not sure.
Now I think:
1) something like "Clause A and Clause B"
in this situation, I can decide the time frame separately in A and B.
2) but when the situation is "Main clause A, subordinate clause B",
I should consider A and B together.
Please tell me whether my thought is in the right way. Thank you in advance.

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Although it's good to consider time frames and the relations between clauses, the rules that you wrote down are too simplistic: there are lots of easy counterexamples - see if you can think of some.

I would encourage you to think simply about tenses. There are a few basic rules (check out the SC strategy guide chapter 8), and then you can refine your knowledge with experience of GMAT questions. It's good that you're engaging with the issues, but don't go too far: trying to deduce all the rules of English grammar is too big a project!