Astronomers have uncovered evidence

[kthakkar]

This comes from the 2nd GMAT Prep exam.

Astronomers have uncovered evidence that a star that was as bright as the full moon exploding into view 340,000 years ago, emitting dazzling radiation that could have disrupted Earth's protective ozone layer and sunburned our Stone Age ancestors.

A) that a star that was as bright as the full moon exploding into view 340,000 years ago, emitting
B) that a star as bright as the full moon exploded into view 340,000 years ago, emitting
C) of a star that was as bright as the full moon exploding into view 340,000 years ago and that it emitted
D) of a star as bright as the full moon, exploding into view 340,000 years ago and emitting
E) of a star as bright as the full moon that exploded into view 340,000 years ago and that emitted

This question screams clarity of meaning to me. I tried to pick the selection that made it clear that the star exploded into view, not the full moon. The answer choices that remained were B and E. Between these two I could not find a good reason to eliminate either one. I supposed you could eliminate E for the same reason as well as for the reason that it seems the astronomers found evidence of the star rather than the fact that the star could have emitted radiation that disrupted the earth's radiation. At this point I ran out of time and just chose E, which turned out to be wrong as it was B :)

Any ideas on this one?

[klm]

This comes from the 2nd GMAT Prep exam.

Astronomers have uncovered evidence that a star that was as bright as the full moon exploding into view 340,000 years ago, emitting dazzling radiation that could have disrupted Earth's protective ozone layer and sunburned our Stone Age ancestors.

A) that a star that was as bright as the full moon exploding into view 340,000 years ago, emitting
B) that a star as bright as the full moon exploded into view 340,000 years ago, emitting
C) of a star that was as bright as the full moon exploding into view 340,000 years ago and that it emitted
D) of a star as bright as the full moon, exploding into view 340,000 years ago and emitting
E) of a star as bright as the full moon that exploded into view 340,000 years ago and that emitted

This question screams clarity of meaning to me. I tried to pick the selection that made it clear that the star exploded into view, not the full moon. The answer choices that remained were B and E. Between these two I could not find a good reason to eliminate either one. I supposed you could eliminate E for the same reason as well as for the reason that it seems the astronomers found evidence of the star rather than the fact that the star could have emitted radiation that disrupted the earth's radiation. At this point I ran out of time and just chose E, which turned out to be wrong as it was B :)

Any ideas on this one?

It is B. needs modifying phrase at the end.

[PH]

Choice E...that should always modify the noun right before it and in this choice it incorrectly modifies the moon when it should be modyfing the star. So this is wrong....

[rfernandez]

Nice work, PH. "that exploded..." is in fact modifying moon. Only choice B makes it clear that the star is what exploded.

[editor: actually, this statement is mistaken; see ron's post below from mid-october 2010.]

Rey

[Guest]

Is D wrong because it is unclear what did the exploding and the emitting. to me when I read it seems pretty clear that it was the star that did this...

is there anything else wrong with this sentence...

also is EVIDENCE OF an idiomatic phrase?

[Guest]

D) of a star as bright as the full moon, exploding into view 340,000 years ago and emitting

Here exploding incorrectly modifies the way astronomers uncovered. Meaning is wrong.

Pathik

[RonPurewal]

D) of a star as bright as the full moon, exploding into view 340,000 years ago and emitting

Here exploding incorrectly modifies the way astronomers uncovered. Meaning is wrong.

Pathik

good point.

also note that, if choice d is inserted into the sentence, there are no past-tense verbs that place the explosion in a proper time frame, even though it is said to have occurred 340,000 years ago. (instead, this action, which was clearly in the past, is described exclusively with present participles). there should be at least one past-tense verb (like 'exploded' in the correct choice b) that cements the past-tense nature of the action described.

[morningdew123]

19) Astronomers have uncovered evidence that a star that was as bright as the full moon exploding into view 340,000 years ago, emitting dazzling radiation that could have disrupted Earth's protective ozone layer and sunburned our Stone Age ancestors.

A) that a star that was as bright as the full moon exploding into view 340,000 years ago, emitting -
i) Is "that was" not redundant;
ii) Does "exploding into view 340,000 years ago" not modify "full moon".

C) of a star that was as bright as the full moon exploding into view 340,000 years ago and that it emitted -
i) Does "exploding into view 340,000 years ago" not modify "full moon";
ii) Does "and that it emitted" not alter the intent for it establishes equality instead of modification as it is done in the original sentence.

D) of a star as bright as the full moon, exploding into view 340,000 years ago and emitting -
i)Is the intent not altered because in the original sentence "exploding into view 340,000 years ago" is the part of the main clause but in this choice it is a part of modifier.

E) of a star as bright as the full moon that exploded into view 340,000 years ago and that emitted -
i) Does "and that emitted" not alter the intent for it establishes equality instead of modification as it is done in the original sentence.

[morningdew123]

Nice work, PH. "that exploded..." is in fact modifying moon. Only choice B makes it clear that the star is what exploded.

Rey

In my opinion use of "that" does not restrict the modification to the closest noun. It is fair enough to assume that "that exploded" is modifying "star". Please let me know if I am wrong...

[RonPurewal]

Nice work, PH. "that exploded..." is in fact modifying moon. Only choice B makes it clear that the star is what exploded.

Rey

In my opinion use of "that" does not restrict the modification to the closest noun. It is fair enough to assume that "that exploded" is modifying "star". Please let me know if I am wrong...

morningdew is correct.
there are all kinds of official sentences in which a noun is separated from a "that"-modifier. for one example, see #50 in the DIAGNOSTIC verbal section (not #50 in the normal sentence correction) of OG11 or OG12.
(nothing special about that particular question -- i just happen to know the reference off the top of my head)

the problem with that choice is that it refers to "evidence" of the star itself, an unacceptable change of meaning from the intentions of the original. (the original clearly indicates that we're dealing with evidence that the star exploded -- not just evidence of the star's existence.)