SC : astronomical phenomena

[jerly_vivek]

ok. the bottom line:
that "because of" should modify a verb and be followed by a noun/noun phrase.

[RonPurewal]

"because of" can't follow a form of "to be". it has to follow a normal verb.

What if 'because of' follows relative pronouns such as that, which, etc..?

i.e. which because of, that because of

the way you've punctuated these, they are impossible.

however, if the "because of" modifier is inserted between two commas (and is thus non-essential / removable), it's possible that you could have these words in this order.

here's an example:

the family had traveled 500 miles to ascend into the statue's crown, which, because of heightened security, was closed off when they arrived.

note that "which because of" is NOT a single clause. the basic sentence is just
the family had traveled 500 miles to ascend into the statue's crown, which was closed off when they arrived
...but we've inserted the extra "because of..." clause between two commas.

it's impossible to have "which because of..." as a single clause.

same goes for your other example.

[RonPurewal]

"because of" can't follow a form of "to be". it has to follow a normal verb.

What if 'because of' follows relative pronouns such as that, which, etc..?

the same question, i am not sure which one can be right?
1# it is because of ...
2# it is because of ...that....
3# it is because ....
4# it is because ....that....
5# it is why.....
6# that is why....

#2 and #4 would make sense.

#1 and #3 don't make sense. in these cases, "it" would have to be a normal pronoun - i.e., it would have to stand for a noun - and "NOUN is because..." is impossible.

i don't think #5 would ever be acceptable. in fact, i don't think "NOUN is why..." could ever work.

#6 can't work, because you're not allowed to use "that" as a standalone noun.
(you can use "that" as a pronoun ONLY if it is part of a parallel structure, i.e., the legacy of Beethoven vs. that of Bach.)

[tankobe]

"because of" can't follow a form of "to be". it has to follow a normal verb.

#2 and #4 would make sense.

#1 and #3 don't make sense. in these cases, "it" would have to be a normal pronoun - i.e., it would have to stand for a noun - and "NOUN is because..." is impossible.

i don't think #5 would ever be acceptable. in fact, i don't think "NOUN is why..." could ever work.

#6 can't work, because you're not allowed to use "that" as a standalone noun.
(you can use "that" as a pronoun ONLY if it is part of a parallel structure, i.e., the legacy of Beethoven vs. that of Bach.)

hmm! i am sure that i have learned something i did not know before.

[akhp77]

Hi Ron

Thanks for explanation

I understood that E is better.

E: are caused by the interaction of two stars orbiting each other at close range

I believe that "orbiting each other at close range" is a noun modifier.

Otherwise it would be a problematic because it violates OF + NOUN + ING

So "orbiting" is participial not gerund. Is my understanding right?

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron

Thanks for explanation

I understood that E is better.

E: are caused by the interaction of two stars orbiting each other at close range

I believe that "orbiting each other at close range" is a noun modifier.

Otherwise it would be a problematic because it violates OF + NOUN + ING

So "orbiting" is participial not gerund. Is my understanding right?

yes, all correct.

note that it's impossible to have a gerund immediately following a noun. (in fact, it's impossible, across the board, to have two nouns in succession.) therefore, if you see an -ING construction immediately after a noun, then that construction must be a modifier, not a gerund.

[llzzyy234]

For option B, I already know "may be" is redundant.
I just want to ask if "interaction between two stars that each orbit the other" here "orbit" should be "orbits"?

[RonPurewal]

For option B, I already know "may be" is redundant.
I just want to ask if "interaction between two stars that each orbit the other" here "orbit" should be "orbits"?

in the constructions "each NOUN + VERB" and "each of the NOUNS + VERB", the subject is "each", so the verb should be singular.

on the other hand, in the construction "the NOUNS each VERB", "each" is an adverb, and the subject is "the NOUNS". therefore, the verb in this instance should be plural.

for instance,
each of our cars has been driven over 100,000 miles.
each car has been driven over 100,000 miles.
but
these cars each have been driven over 100,000 miles.

i doubt that you will ever be tested on this sort of thing, but there it is.

[llzzyy234]

thx for the explanation

[RonPurewal]

thx for the explanation

sure.

[Doe007]

I am reopening the thread as I have a question, though my question is related to the part that is not underlined. This particular GMATPrep question is starting with "It seems likely" -- isn't seems likely redundant? I am wondering if this redundancy can appear in correct answer for any GMAT question.

Requesting MGMAT tutors to provide some feedback on this. Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

I am reopening the thread as I have a question, though my question is related to the part that is not underlined. This particular GMATPrep question is starting with "It seems likely" -- isn't seems likely redundant? I am wondering if this redundancy can appear in correct answer for any GMAT question.

Requesting MGMAT tutors to provide some feedback on this. Thanks in advance.

not redundant. if something seems likely, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is so -- it only seems that way.
e.g.
although rain may seem likely today, it's not going to happen -- so you can leave your umbrella at home.
this sentence makes sense. if you try to replace "may seem likely" with "may be likely", the resulting sentence will be nonsense.

[Doe007]

not redundant. if something seems likely, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is so -- it only seems that way.
e.g.
although rain may seem likely today, it's not going to happen -- so you can leave your umbrella at home.
this sentence makes sense. if you try to replace "may seem likely" with "may be likely", the resulting sentence will be nonsense.

Hi Ron, I appreciate your continuous helps in various forums including this one.
After your explanation, now I feel "seem" indicates perception and "likely" indicates probability. Am I correct here?
[As I am not a native English person, I might have some misconceptions and a lot of questions. :) ]

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron, I appreciate your continuous helps in various forums including this one.

thanks.

After your explanation, now I feel "seem" indicates perception and "likely" indicates probability. Am I correct here?

yes -- and that's a very concise and eloquent summary, too.

[SC312]

Ron,

In one of your post you have mentioned that constructions such as [PREPOSITION]+[NOUN]+[VERBING] are considered fatally awkward. Therefore we can eliminate such choices. But in the correct answer E, we have this type of construction.

interaction of two stars orbiting each other

While I understand that orbiting is unambiguously referring to stars and not interaction, can we consider this answer as one of the exceptional cases when this form is correct ?

Thanks
Sudipto