Because Miranda, the smallest moon of Uranus,

[vietst]

Because Miranda, the smallest moon of Uranus, has a large number of different surface features, including craters, mountains, valleys, and fractures, some astronomers suggest that at one time repeated impacts broke the surface apart, and after which the fragments were subsequently rejoined because of mutual gravitational attraction.

(A) repeated impacts broke the surface apart, and after which the fragments were subsequently rejoined because of
(B) repeated impacts on the surface broke it apart, after which the fragments having rejoined with
(C) through repeated impacts that the surface broke apart, after which the fragments subsequently rejoined by
(D) the surface broke apart with repeated impacts, after which the fragments having rejoined through
(E) the surface broke apart as a result of repeated impacts, after which the fragments rejoined through
could you help me this question?
OA is E
Thanks

[vietst]

could you help me this question?
Thanks

[rschunti]

My suggestions are as mentioned below:-

"A" is wrong because usage of "after which" and "subsequently" together is redundant.

"B" is wrong as "it" has no reference. "Having" is wrong.

"C" is awkward. Pls see above "A" for another issue.

"D" is wrong sematically. The surface did not broke with repeated impact. It is the effect of the repeated impact that broke the surface. Usage of having is wrong.

Choice "E" is more concise and properly constructed.

I will let expert explain it better.
Thanks

[RonPurewal]

(A) repeated impacts broke the surface apart, and after which the fragments were subsequently rejoined because of

- don't need 'and' if you use 'after which' (no need for 2 linking words/phrases)
- redundancy: 'after which' means the same thing as 'subsequently', so having both is fatal
- 'because of' is sketchy; it suggests indirect causation, while the clear meaning is that gravitational attraction was directly responsible
- bad parallelism: first half is in active voice, but second half is in passive voice

(B) repeated impacts on the surface broke it apart, after which the fragments having rejoined with

- 'it' could potentially refer to either 'surface' or 'miranda' (or even 'uranus')
- 'having rejoined with' isn't a verb (an actual bona fide verb is required for parallelism)

(C) through repeated impacts that the surface broke apart, after which the fragments subsequently rejoined by

- read the whole thing: suggested that at one time through repeated impacts that... huh??
- the wording suggests that the surface broke apart by itself (although perhaps because of the urging of the impacts) - doesn't have anywhere near as much directness as it should

(D) the surface broke apart with repeated impacts, after which the fragments having rejoined through

- 'with' is incorrect
- 'having rejoined': same problem as in choice b

(E) the surface broke apart as a result of repeated impacts, after which the fragments rejoined through

CORRECT
- 'as a result of' = proper idiom
- proper parallelism: the surface broke apart is parallel to the fragments rejoined

[Guest]

(A) repeated impacts broke the surface apart, and after which the fragments were subsequently rejoined because of

- don't need 'and' if you use 'after which' (no need for 2 linking words/phrases)
- redundancy: 'after which' means the same thing as 'subsequently', so having both is fatal
- 'because of' is sketchy; it suggests indirect causation, while the clear meaning is that gravitational attraction was directly responsible
- bad parallelism: first half is in active voice, but second half is in passive voice

(B) repeated impacts on the surface broke it apart, after which the fragments having rejoined with

- 'it' could potentially refer to either 'surface' or 'miranda' (or even 'uranus')
- 'having rejoined with' isn't a verb (an actual bona fide verb is required for parallelism)

(C) through repeated impacts that the surface broke apart, after which the fragments subsequently rejoined by

- read the whole thing: suggested that at one time through repeated impacts that... huh??
- the wording suggests that the surface broke apart by itself (although perhaps because of the urging of the impacts) - doesn't have anywhere near as much directness as it should

(D) the surface broke apart with repeated impacts, after which the fragments having rejoined through

- 'with' is incorrect
- 'having rejoined': same problem as in choice b

(E) the surface broke apart as a result of repeated impacts, after which the fragments rejoined through

CORRECT
- 'as a result of' = proper idiom
- proper parallelism: the surface broke apart is parallel to the fragments rejoined

but suggest that should be in subjunctive mood please comment

[Guest]

Other than subjunctive question above, I have another question - what is the referent of which. I thought in gmat which can not refer to action.
I understand all the options use this phrase but understaning its use might be helpful somewhere else.

Thanks
Pathik

[StaceyKoprince]

Be careful here - it isn't the case that any time we use the verb suggest we must use subjunctive. Go back and re-read the explanation for subjunctive in your strategy guide:

"The subjunctive is used to express the desire of one person or body for another person or body to do something. There is a degree of uncertainty as to whether the second person or body will actually do what is asked."

The astronomers are not suggesting to the meteors or whatever caused the impacts that they should come and crash into the planet. :) They're suggesting / supposing that this is how something happened - something that has already occurred.

Also, re: which, a couple of things. First, something that is an action is not necessarily a verb. You can also have an action noun. The word "impacts" is a noun - it happens to be talking about an action, but it's still a noun. The rule is that "which" is supposed to refer to a noun, not a verb. That doesn't mean the noun can't be an action noun.

Also, this sentence doesn't just use "which" but "after which" - this is slightly different than plain "which." With "after which," you are referring to a period of time - one thing or event taking place after another thing or event. And that's also what's going on in this sentence.

[vineet3183]

Be careful here - it isn't the case that any time we use the verb suggest we must use subjunctive. Go back and re-read the explanation for subjunctive in your strategy guide:

"The subjunctive is used to express the desire of one person or body for another person or body to do something. There is a degree of uncertainty as to whether the second person or body will actually do what is asked."

The astronomers are not suggesting to the meteors or whatever caused the impacts that they should come and crash into the planet. :) They're suggesting / supposing that this is how something happened - something that has already occurred.

Also, re: which, a couple of things. First, something that is an action is not necessarily a verb. You can also have an action noun. The word "impacts" is a noun - it happens to be talking about an action, but it's still a noun. The rule is that "which" is supposed to refer to a noun, not a verb. That doesn't mean the noun can't be an action noun.

Also, this sentence doesn't just use "which" but "after which" - this is slightly different than plain "which." With "after which," you are referring to a period of time - one thing or event taking place after another thing or event. And that's also what's going on in this sentence.

HI STACEY,
COULD YOU TELL ME THE ROLE OF "AFTER WHICH" -- WHICH IS ACTING AS THE
MODIFIER.
I AM TOTALLY CONFUSED.

[deadpig1987hahaha]

Ron,

CORRECT
- 'as a result of' = proper idiom
- proper parallelism: the surface broke apart is parallel to the fragments rejoined

I think "repeated impacts" are directly responsible for the breaking apart of surface.
Why it can follow "because of" but can follow "as a result of" here.
I thought "because of" =" as a result of"
So they actually have some subtle difference in meaning?

please explain.

[manish1sinha]

[quote="RonPurewal"][quote="vietst"]
- 'because of' is sketchy; it suggests indirect causation, while the clear meaning is that gravitational attraction was directly responsible

Hi Ron,
Thanks a lot for the wonderful explanation.

Could you please explain how can I apply the concept of indirect causation in the following sentences.

"The train was delayed because of the rain"
"I was late because of the line at the bank"

Thanks in Advance :)

[RonPurewal]

HI STACEY,
COULD YOU TELL ME THE ROLE OF "AFTER WHICH" -- WHICH IS ACTING AS THE
MODIFIER.
I AM TOTALLY CONFUSED.

"preposition + WHICH" plays the same modifying role as does plain "which" -- namely, it modifies the noun preceding the comma.

in the original sentence, then, this "after which" doesn't make any sense, because there is no noun in the appropriate position (i.e., preceding the comma).

in the correct answer, "after which..." correctly modifies the immediately preceding noun "(repeated) impacts".

[RonPurewal]

Ron,

I think "repeated impacts" are directly responsible for the breaking apart of surface.

the way that the correct answer is phrased, we must interpret this as indirect causation.
the correct answer is written with the active-voice verb "broke apart" -- i.e., the surface broke apart by itself. therefore, the proper interpretation is that the service broke apart, all by itself, after being weakened by the repeated impacts.

if the sentence is meant to give the impression that the impacts directly broke the surface, you would have to use the passive voice: "the surface was broken apart by repeated impacts."

see the difference?

[RonPurewal]

Could you please explain how can I apply the concept of indirect causation in the following sentences.

"The train was delayed because of the rain"
"I was late because of the line at the bank"

Thanks in Advance :)

i don't really understand what you mean by "how i can apply the concept", but both of these sentences make sense, because the causation is indirect in both cases.

for instance:
* the train was delayed because of the rain --> correct, since the rain itself did not directly delay the train -- the rain set off a chain of consequences, because of which people decided to delay the train.

* the train was delayed [i]by the conductor[/i] --> also correct, since the conductor him/herself directly delayed the train by his/her own actions.

neither of the alternatives -- "the train was delayed by the rain" or "the train was delayed because of the conductor" -- makes sense. make sure that you know why not, using the same logic applied above.

[arindam.gupta1]

Shouldn't after which modify the surface broke apart instead of repeated impacts.

I am not questioning the OA but only trying to understand the rule behind it.

Thanks.

[tim]

No. I think you're probably referring to the rule that says a "which" following a comma needs to refer to the noun right before it. This is not the case when "which" is the object of a preposition, as we have here..