GMAT Prep: Star Collapse

[yuppiechang]

Were it not for the fusion-powered heat and radiation that rush from its core, instead its own weight would cause a star to collapse
A. instead its own weight would cause a star to collapse
B. instead a star would have collapsed under its own weight
C. a star would have to be collapsing under its own weight
D. a star would collapse under its own weight
E. its own weight would have caused a star’s collapse

OA: D

Dear Instructors,

I chose D on this question and I think in D, "the star' is well paralleled with "its" in the first half sentence logically.

But I am not sure what is wrong for other choices as I just dont like them through reading. E.g. is the "instead" itself for choices A and B correct or not?

Can you help explain the errors of other choices?

Thanks a lot

[yuppiechang]

Also if a possessive pronoun PRECEDES a possessive noun, then the assumption is that it DOESN'T stand for that noun.

for the correct answer:

Were it not for the fusion-powered heat and radiation that rush from its core,a star would collapse under its own weight.

Can I assume its core acctually means another stars' core?

thanks for the help,

[vietmoi937]

"instead" in A and B is wrong.
in C , "would have to" dose not exist in English

in E, "would have caused" can not go with "were" not because E dose not fit the 3rd kind of conditional sentence but because there is not logic for "were" to go with "would have done" . If some thing unreal happens now, some thing in the past would happen. that is the meaning of E and so is not logic.
Though grammar books said that conditional sentences do not need to fit the 3 kinds but can be differenct , depending on meaning, the patern in E is not logic.

is my thinking correct?

[RonPurewal]

Can you help explain the errors of other choices?

We can't give a detailed explanation of everything that is wrong with every choice. Please post specific questions, about specific constructions in particular answer choices. Thanks.

The short version:
* The use of both "Were it not for..." and "instead" is redundant.
* In the two wrong answers that don't contain that redundancy, the verb tenses don't make sense.

But I am not sure what is wrong for other choices as I just dont like them through reading.

if you can do that, then that's actually IDEAL!

I.e., the best way to solve SC problems is to have an intuition for written English that's well-developed enough to let you just look at things and eliminate them through pure intuition.
(I'm also a professional writer and editor, and I solve 100% of all SC problems this way; I don't ever think about "rules" unless I am responding to a forum post.)

Rules are a backup, to be used only if your intuition isn't strong enough to handle the task at hand. (This is also the case for just about every other form of learning in life, not just GMAT SC. For instance, if I can just tell that someone is lying to me, I don't need to think about "rules" of facial expressions, etc. that I learned in a forensic psychology class.)

Also if a possessive pronoun PRECEDES a possessive noun, then the assumption is that it DOESN'T stand for that noun.

nope, wrong. check out #70 in OG12.

for the correct answer:

Were it not for the fusion-powered heat and radiation that rush from its core,a star would collapse under its own weight.

Can I assume its core acctually means another stars' core?

i'm sure you know this already, but, clearly, everything in that sentence refers to the same star.

[yuppiechang]

Hi Ron and vietmoi937, thanks a lot for the detailed and helpful explanation!

[yuppiechang]

Also if a possessive pronoun PRECEDES a possessive noun, then the assumption is that it DOESN'T stand for that noun.

nope, wrong. check out #70 in OG12.

Hi Ron, thanks for your advice, I cheched the OG 12 #70:

[----]

do you mean that in this OG question, there are only possessive pronouns while no possessive noun, so there is no ambiguity and it does not apply to the rule "if a possessive pronoun PRECEDES a possessive noun, then the assumption is that it DOESN'T stand for that noun."?

Thanks a lot,
Yup

[RonPurewal]

Also if a possessive pronoun PRECEDES a possessive noun, then the assumption is that it DOESN'T stand for that noun.

nope, wrong. check out #70 in OG12.

Hi Ron, thanks for your advice, I cheched the OG 12 #70:

[----]

do you mean that in this OG question, there are only possessive pronouns while no possessive noun, so there is no ambiguity and it does not apply to the rule "if a possessive pronoun PRECEDES a possessive noun, then the assumption is that it DOESN'T stand for that noun."?

Thanks a lot,
Yup

hi, please don't post the OG material; GMAC has requested that we not allow that, thanks.

I didn't notice that your original formulation said "possessive noun". So I guess that's not a counterexample. But, just take my word for it"”that's not a real rule.

Also, in general, it's not worthwhile to think about the difference between possessive and non-possessive nouns. That's not something that will be dispositive in gmat problems, so it's best to keep the issue simple.

[yuppiechang]

Thanks a lot, Ron!

[tim]

:)

[1009918171]

Were it not for the fusion-powered heat and radiation that rush from its core,a star would collapse under its own weight.

I'm not sure whether there is a pronoun ambiguity in the sentence above. I remember that all pronoun should refer to the same thing in one sentence. Does the first "IT" ("were it not for") refer to the "star"?

Thank you very much!

[RonPurewal]

Were it not for the fusion-powered heat and radiation that rush from its core,a star would collapse under its own weight.

I'm not sure whether there is a pronoun ambiguity in the sentence above. I remember that all pronoun should refer to the same thing in one sentence. Does the first "IT" ("were it not for") refer to the "star"?

Thank you very much!

The first "it" is one of those examples of "it" that doesn't have to stand for anything.

For instance, all of the following sentences are correct ways of expressing essentially the same idea:
I was late to the meeting only because of the traffic.
Only because of the traffic was I late to the meeting.
It was only because of the traffic that I was late to the meeting.
Were it not for the traffic, I would have been on time to the meeting.

[1009918171]

Were it not for the fusion-powered heat and radiation that rush from its core,a star would collapse under its own weight.

I'm not sure whether there is a pronoun ambiguity in the sentence above. I remember that all pronoun should refer to the same thing in one sentence. Does the first "IT" ("were it not for") refer to the "star"?

Thank you very much!

The first "it" is one of those examples of "it" that doesn't have to stand for anything.

For instance, all of the following sentences are correct ways of expressing essentially the same idea:
I was late to the meeting only because of the traffic.
Only because of the traffic was I late to the meeting.
It was only because of the traffic that I was late to the meeting.
Were it not for the traffic, I would have been on time to the meeting.

Thanks a lot for the explanation!

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[gauravtyagigmat]

expressing essentially the same idea:
I was late to the meeting only because of the traffic.
Only because of the traffic was I late to the meeting.
It was only because of the traffic that I was late to the meeting.
Were it not for the fusion-powered heat and radiation that rush from its core, instead
its.

Please explain the usage and meaning of last sentence
Were it not for the fusion-powered heat and radiation that rush from its core, instead its

It is a singular pronoun while were is plural how can we use plural verb with singular pronoun

[RonPurewal]

expressing essentially the same idea:
I was late to the meeting only because of the traffic.
Only because of the traffic was I late to the meeting.
It was only because of the traffic that I was late to the meeting.
Were it not for the fusion-powered heat and radiation that rush from its core, instead
its.

Please explain the usage and meaning of last sentence
Were it not for the fusion-powered heat and radiation that rush from its core, instead its

It is a singular pronoun while were is plural how can we use plural verb with singular pronoun

You can find information on this topic by Googling the term "hypothetical subjunctive".