1. The given sentence is in fact a complete mess. In the first case, THAT WAS after STAR is unnecessary: the idea could be expressed perfectly well as
a star as bright as. In the second, the clause
a star that was as bright as the full moon exploding into view implies that what was exploding into view was the full moon. And third, the use of the present participle EXPLODING in parallel with EMITTING leaves the sentence unfinished: to avoid this sentence fragment, the option should have used EXPLODED, so converting EMITTING into the
consequence of the explosion.
2. This case of incoherent parallelism is repeated in option B.
3. In option C, the use of WAS is incorrect: in order to be right in this context, it would have to be preceded by THAT:
evidence of a star that was. This would then be grammatically correct. Nevertheless, THAT WAS would continue to be unnecessary. (This is the simplest error to notice in this option, but the sequence
evidence of a star ... and that it emitted involves a non-parallel combination of a phrase and a clause.)
4. The parallelism of EXPLODING and EMITTING in option D leaves the sentence as incomplete as it is in the first two options.
5. In the very unlikely case that a question as bad as this one should appear in your GMAT, you would have to choose option E. By this I mean that it is the best of a very bad lot. (I am assuming that you have copied it correctly.) Let's see first why you would have to choose it. First, because it says that
Astronomers have uncovered evidence of a star. On the face of it, this is all right: people can find evidence of things. And second, it says that this evidence is of something
that exploded into view 340,000 years ago and that emitted dazzling radiation, so at least there are two parallel clauses. Furthermore, the use of EXPLODED allows the sentence to finish, so remedying the defect in options A, B, and D.
6. Nevertheless, option E is not without problems of its own. I'd be interested to know where you got this question from: I'd be very surprised if it were from official material from GMAC. The problems are the following:
a. It does not make much sense to say that
Astronomers have uncovered evidence of a star. It's not necessary to be an astronomer to see evidence of a star (our Sun) in the existence of daylight. What astronomers have discovered should be THAT a star with certain characteristics did something.
b. It makes even less sense to say that
Astronomers have uncovered evidence of a star as bright as the full moon. A star that emitted DAZZLING RADIATION and that COULD HAVE SUNBURNED somebody would have been very much brighter than the full moon, not AS BRIGHT AS that moon. (Whoever wrote this question must have been half-asleep at this point.)
c. The syntax of the option is confusing. Clearly, the intended idea is that what EXPLODED INTO VIEW was A STAR. Nonetheless, the clause
a star as bright as the full moon that exploded into view implies that the moon did so: the relative clause
that exploded into view modifies MOON.
In summary: option E is the only possible choice, but I very much doubt that you will be obliged to make such a choice in the GMAT.
If you like this post, please click on the THANK button.
You can also visit us at
https://www.xgmat.com/
