sulabh wrote: If I were you,I would

But it is different here, If it strikes( not it were to strike)..
A seems to be the best fit here ..!

@sulabh

I agree with you about subjunctives.

But option C

"and that, if it were to strike Earth, could do tremendous damage to part of the planet but would"

It does not seem a doubtful statement , so can not be subjunctive. were is not justified here.

This is giving a fact.so it should be indicative mood statment.

Option A should be a better fit.

what is the OA?

Answer is (C) since it uses the right tenses for "IF" clause. IF clause with past tense "were" followed by "could" clause.

After so much discussion we have reached to one conclusion that the answer has to be either A or C.Now A doesn't seem parallel to me and also has an ambigous 'it'.
EXPERTS !!!! HELP NEEDED

What is the OA ?.. any help is appreciated.

It's C. "were" is correct here.

sulabh wrote:Q.Scientists have identified an asteroid, 2000 BF19, that is about half a mile wide and, if it strikes Earth, it can do tremendous damage to part of the planet but probably not cause planetwide destruction.
A. and, if it strikes Earth, it can do tremendous damage to part of the planet but
B. and, if it would strike Earth, part of the planet could experience a tremendous amount of damage but it would
C. and that, if it were to strike Earth, could do tremendous damage to part of the planet but would
D. and that, if Earth is struck by it, can do part of the planet tremendous damage, but it would
E. and that, if it strikes Earth, it could experience a tremendous amount of damage but

I got this question wrong!

Why on earth would OA be [spoiler][C][/spoiler]?

[A] is best possible and closest to making sense.
outrightly wrong. If [clause] cannot have would, could, etc.
[C] and that makes this sentence really fishy. could do tremendous damage to part of the planet but would makes the sentence structure fragmentative ( invented a new word)
[D] Earth is struck by it passive, avoid it.
[E] and that makes this sentence really fishy.

https://web.ku.edu/~edit/that.html

Often a sentence with two parallel clauses requires the expression “and that” to introduce the second clause and link it to the antecedent common to both clauses:

The senator said he might run again and, if he did, Myra Henry would be his campaign manager.

A “that” is needed after “and” to make it clear for the reader. Therefore, a “that” must be inserted after “said” because of a rule called parallelism — if you've got one “that” referring to the same antecedent, you need another. The “that” after “said” is required even though none would be required had the sentence ended after “again.”

The senator said that he might run again and that, if he did, Myra Henry would be his campaign manager.

This is why C is correct, and a second "that" is required.

If is used to decide among 3 alternatives or in a hypothetical situation.

When if is used in a hypothetical situation it is always followed by were regardless of the subject

Ex.

If we were to do this.....

If I were to do this......

If...were is proper structure here in my opinion.

IMO C

I don't think 'THAT' is required here.

In this sentence 'THAT' refers to asteroid.

If it would have to say what scientists have identified then 'that' should have come before an asteroid. Like this..."Scientists have identified (that) an asteroid is about half a mile wide and that if it strikes, it can….".

However, in our case (that) is after 'an asteroid'…

Now read following carefully...

Original sentence….
"Scientists have identified an asteroid (that is about half a mile wide) and if it strikes Earth, it can do …"

Sentence with an extra 'that'….
"Scientists have identified an asteroid (that is about half a mile wide) and (that) if it strikes Earth, it can do …"

In second statement 'that' before 'if it..' looks unnecessary to me.

Hope I made some sense...I'll go for A…

Please correct me if I am wrong

Are would/could interchangeable?

Why was the OA not included by the person who posted the question? It makes a lot of this exercise futile.

Thanks, Yeloaw, for the explaination about 'and that'. Though I am grateful to you for bringing that unique nuggget of wisdom to the forum, I do not think it fits in this case. In your example the senator is saying X and (saying) that Y.
Here, had the scientists made 2 discoveries, one about the diameter and about the impact of the collision, then 'and that' would have made sense, and C would have been correct.

I am leaning towards A, but can someone explain to me why '(a) part of the planet' is not more correct than 'part of the planet'. I feel if we place an 'a' before 'part' then the sentence becomes more coherent.

OA & Source please?

This is from GMATPrep.

I don't understand how were is correct here, I was between A & C and choose A because of were.

Bleh - I hate the GMAT sometimes.

pls, help
I do not see anything wrong with

The scientist discovered the star and it can damage the earth

this is not wrong but is not intended meaning and a is wrong

Am I right?