The widely accepted big-bang theory holds that

[RonPurewal]

Hi instructors, can i elimininate the options C and D, based on the following.

C. that the beginning of the universe was an explosive instant 10 to 20 billion years ago that has expanded
as "that" illogically refers to "explosive instant"

D. the beginning of the universe to have been an explosive instant 10 to 20 billion years ago that is expanding
as "that" illogically refers to "beginning of the universe"

this is basically the right idea, although "that" in the second example would most likely be attributed to "an explosive instant" as well.
the real issue, of course, is that "that" in both of these examples must refer to the universe itself; the construction of these 2 sentences does not allow "that" to stand for the universe.

In other words, are there any rules which dictate "that" refers to which noun in a sentence?
1) COMMA that

there is no such thing as "comma + that".
if you see a comma in front of "that", then the comma will ALWAYS belong to a different, unrelated construction (such as a modifier) inserted between the noun and "that".

2) w/o COMMA that

there's no hard rule -- in these situations, you have to use logic and common sense to figure out what is being modified.

e.g.
two correct sentences:
1
Logical decision-making in rats that run through mazes has helped shed light on the cognition used by simple animals.
here, "that run through mazes" modifies "rats".
(the rats run through the mazes -- a decision-making process can't run through a maze!)
2
Logical decision-making in rats that resembles the thought processes of young children has helped shed light on the cognition used by simple animals.
here, "that resembles the thought processes of young children" refers to "logical decision-making (in rats)".
(the decision-making process is what "resembles the thought processes..." -- clearly, rats themselves can't resemble a thought process.)

lots of other modifiers are also flexible in this sort of way; for instance, prepositional phrases, when not blocked off by commas, are so flexible that they may modify either nouns or entire actions/clauses.

[gmat.acer]

SC guide mentions that parallel clauses should start with the same word.
In this sentence I believe there should be a parallelism between the clauses 'the universe began..' and 'has been expanding...'

(that the universe began in an explosive instant 10 to 20 billion years ago)
and
( has been expanding ever since )

The fact that we don't have 'that' before the clause "...has been expanding ever since" - means this rule of parallel clauses starting with the same word is not an absolute rule correct?

I was expecting the sentence to be:
(that the universe began in an explosive instant 10 to 20 billion years ago)
and
( that it has been expanding ever since)

Can you please clarify whether my understanding is right? Or something else is involved in this sentence that I am missing?

Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

SC guide mentions that parallel clauses should start with the same word.

that's true when it's possible. but, 2 things:

* there's no reason to treat this as some sort of separate principle; it's just one specific version of "you should make parallel structures look as much like each other as possible."

* in some cases, it's impossible to start both clauses with the same word. e.g.
residents who make noise after hours or whose pets destroy communal property will be fined.
--> in this case, who/whose is the best you are going to do.

the basic principle is just "make parallel things look as much alike as possible, without killing the intended meaning". beyond that, there's no reason to overcomplicate the issue.

In this sentence I believe there should be a parallelism between the clauses 'the universe began..' and 'has been expanding...'

hmm?
one of those is an entire clause, with a subject and verb. the other is just a verb.
it's impossible for these things to be parallel; they are fundamentally different structures.

all parallelism must exist between things that play the same grammatical role in the sentence!
clause || clause, modifier || modifier, verb || verb, etc.

(that the universe began in an explosive instant 10 to 20 billion years ago)
and
( has been expanding ever since )

yeah, wrong parallelism.
the parallelism exists between the verbs (began and has been expanding).

The fact that we don't have 'that' before the clause "...has been expanding ever since" - means this rule of parallel clauses starting with the same word is not an absolute rule correct?

I was expecting the sentence to be:
(that the universe began in an explosive instant 10 to 20 billion years ago)
and
( that it has been expanding ever since)

these questions are void, since those aren't the parallel structures in the first place.

[RonPurewal]

SC guide mentions that parallel clauses should start with the same word.

that's true when it's possible. but, 2 things:

* there's no reason to treat this as some sort of separate principle; it's just one specific version of "you should make parallel structures look as much like each other as possible."

* in some cases, it's impossible to start both clauses with the same word. e.g.
residents who make noise after hours or whose pets destroy communal property will be fined.
--> in this case, who/whose is the best you are going to do.

the basic principle is just "make parallel things look as much alike as possible, without killing the intended meaning". beyond that, there's no reason to overcomplicate the issue.

In this sentence I believe there should be a parallelism between the clauses 'the universe began..' and 'has been expanding...'

hmm?
one of those is an entire clause, with a subject and verb. the other is just a verb.
it's impossible for these things to be parallel; they are fundamentally different structures.

all parallelism must exist between things that play the same grammatical role in the sentence!
clause || clause, modifier || modifier, verb || verb, etc.

(that the universe began in an explosive instant 10 to 20 billion years ago)
and
( has been expanding ever since )

yeah, wrong parallelism.
the parallelism exists between the verbs (began and has been expanding).

The fact that we don't have 'that' before the clause "...has been expanding ever since" - means this rule of parallel clauses starting with the same word is not an absolute rule correct?

I was expecting the sentence to be:
(that the universe began in an explosive instant 10 to 20 billion years ago)
and
( that it has been expanding ever since)

these questions are void, since those aren't the parallel structures in the first place.

[Manihar.sidharth]

Would it be wrong to just discard the options D and E on the basis that they do not start with "THAT".
If yes then can you please explain

[tim]

i think that would be acceptable..

[gmatwork]

I am not clear regarding the split- that Vs no that. Will having no 'that' make this sentence incorrect. Please explain the rule that applies here in terms of usage of 'that' as the opening word in the splits.

Also, please explain why is E wrong?

OE says in E - 'to have begun' and 'has begun' are not parallel...? How?

[jlucero]

I am not clear regarding the split- that Vs no that. Will having no 'that' make this sentence incorrect. Please explain the rule that applies here in terms of usage of 'that' as the opening word in the splits.

The word "that" functions as a conjunction in A-C that allows us to introduce a second clause. Without the word "that" the rest of the sentence would be a long object of the main clause:

The big-bang theory holds the universe/the beginning of the universe.

vs

The big-bang theory holds THAT the universe began in an instant.

The big-bang theory is not physically holding a thing, it's holding an idea that includes both a subject and a verb.

Also, please explain why is E wrong?

OE says in E - 'to have begun' and 'has begun' are not parallel...? How?

E states:

The widely accepted big-bang theory holds the universe:

(1) to have begun... (infinitive verb)

AND

(2) has been expanding... (present perfect progressive)

Not parallel... not right.

[gmatwork]

Do we need to use a "that" in this sentence to say - The theory hold that........ Vs The thoery holds........

When do we need a "that" and when not for such openings that define a theory or a term in a sentence?

[RonPurewal]

in these kinds of contexts, that + CLAUSE can substitute for a noun.
i believe two things.
i believe that two things are true.

so, if the theory holds/says/etc. some idea that's represented by a clause, then, ideally, that should appear in front of that clause.

[sachin.w]

E states:

The widely accepted big-bang theory holds the universe:

(1) to have begun... (infinitive verb)

AND

(2) has been expanding... (present perfect progressive)

Not parallel... not right.

Just wondering how to make them parallel to cement my understanding of parallelism.

The widely accepted big-bang theory holds the universe to have begun in an explosive instant 10 to 20 billion years ago and to have expanded ever since.

Will the above sentence be correct?
Guess there's no other way to make it parallel.

Also,'to have begun in an explosive instant' is a modifier that modifiers universe rite?
Is it a grammatically correct construct?
Is it not wordy? Can E be eliminated on the basis of wordiness?

[tim]

your example is parallel.

"to have begun" is not grammatically correct when it follows a noun.

you should NEVER eliminate an answer based on wordiness. the idea that wordiness has ANY relevance in SC is an absolute myth; please do not fall for it.

[sachin.w]

Take-away: When you see the PAST PERFECT in a sentence or an answer choice, IMMEDIATELY look for another action in the SIMPLE PAST TENSE that is related and that logically follows after the action in the past tense. If the latter is not present, there "generally" is NO REASON to use the past perfect.

Hi Ron,

Can it be inferred that, if there is a simple past tense in the other part of teh sentence, we must not use the present perfect tense?

[xyq121573]

"to have begun" is not grammatically correct when it follows a noun.

do you mean that even if E is parallel (The widely accepted big-bang theory holds the universe to have begun in an explosive instant 10 to 20 billion years ago and to have expanded ever since.) ,this sentence is still incorrect because of the wrong idiom hold sth to do?

[tim]

Can it be inferred that, if there is a simple past tense in the other part of teh sentence, we must not use the present perfect tense?

not at all. i think more than anything what Ron is trying to get across here is that you must use common sense to determine which tenses are most appropriate at a given point. there are NO rules that say tenses always have to be the same; we just make them the same if common sense tells us that they ought to be the same..