I believe the answer should be B.

Since we are referring to an event in the past we expect the word to be 'exploded' and not 'exploding'. E is out because it is referring to the moon that exploded.

Experts pl help here.I want to understand the basic difference between "evidence of" and evidence that"What are the correct usages of these two?pl explain.

sandipgumtya wrote:Experts pl help here.I want to understand the basic difference between "evidence of" and evidence that"What are the correct usages of these two?pl explain.

After evidence of you need a noun or a noun phrase, something that the evidence can be of.

Here's an example.

Extensive research has uncovered evidence of small ratlike animals having eaten the eggs of dinosaurs.

Here's another one.

The committee found evidence of extensive fraud.

that after evidence could be the beginning of a restrictive modifier starting with that.

Researcher's have found evidence that supports the theory that small, ratlike animals ate the eggs of dinosaurs.

There is also an idiom, It is evident that ...

It is evident that ratlike animals ate the eggs of dinosaurs.

While I am not 100% sure of the following, I don't think that the form used in the first two answer choices is correct. In other words I am pretty sure that Astronomers have uncovered evidence that a star ... is not correct. Rather for the use of that to make sense, that has to be part of a restrictive modifier or to be used in something along the lines of Astronomers have uncovered evidence indicating that a star ...

All that having been said there are other ways to eliminate answer choices of this question.

A-that a star that was as bright as the full moon exploding into view 340000 years ago,emitting

This does not make sense as exploding seems to modify full moon. A verb-ing modifier that follows a noun without a comma in between is usually modifying that noun.

B-that a star as bright as the full moon exploding into view 340000 years ago,emitting

Once again exploding seems to modify full moon.

For A or B to be correct, they would need to be something more like the following.

Astronomers have uncovered evidence indicating that a star as bright as the full moon exploded into view ...

C-of a star was as bright as the full moon exploding into view 340000 years ago and that it emitted

This one is missing that after star. Without that the sentence conveys that the evidence itself was as bright as the full moon.

Also, once again exploding seems to modify full moon.

D-of a star as bright as the full moon, exploding into view 340000 years ago and emitting

This does not make sense because the present tense exploding and emitting are used in describing something that happened in the past.

E-of a star as bright as the full moon that exploded into view 340000 years ago and that emitted

I guess this is the best. that exploded ... and emitted could be seen as modifying the full moon, but if you see that exploded ... and emitted as referring to the entire expression star as bright as the full moon, then the sentence works.

So the best, though not perfect, answer is E.

Hi Marty,
What should be the correct ans ?Is it E.

sandipgumtya wrote:Hi Marty,
What should be the correct ans ?Is it E.

Yes. That's the best answer.

Answer choice B has been transcribed incorrectly.
It should read as follows:

Astronomers have uncovered evidence that a star that was as bright as the full moon exploding into view 340.000 years ago, emitting dazzling radiation that could have disrupted Earth's protective ozone layer and sunburned our Stone Age ancestors.
A. that a star that was as bright as the full moon exploding into view 340,000 years ago, emitting
B. that a star as bright as the full moon exploded into view 340,000 years ago, emitting
C. of a star that was as bright as the full moon exploding into view 340,000 years ago and that it emitted
D. of a star as bright as the full moon, exploding into view 340,000 years ago and emitting
E. of a star as bright as the full moon that exploded into view 340,000 years ago and that emitted

A and C: the full moon exploding
Here, exploding seems to refer to the full moon, implying that THE FULL MOON was EXPLODING.
Not the intended meaning.
The intended intended meaning is that a STAR exploded.
Eliminate A.

Generally, COMMA + VERBing serves to refer to the PRECEDING SUBJECT.
D: Scientists have uncovered evidence of a star, exploding into view 340,000 years ago.
Here, exploding seems to refer to scientists -- the preceding subject -- implying that SCIENTISTS have been EXPLODING -- a nonsensical meaning.
Eliminate D.

E: the full moon that exploded
Here, that exploded seems to refer to the full moon, implying that THE FULL MOON EXPLODED.
Not the intended meaning.
The intended intended meaning is that a STAR exploded.
Eliminate E.

The correct answer is B.

Thanks Mitch for your explanation.can u pl shed some light on the difference between "evidence of"and "evidence that"?
Thanks

sandipgumtya wrote:Thanks Mitch for your explanation.can u pl shed some light on the difference between "evidence of"and "evidence that"?
Thanks

evidence of X serves to convey that the EXISTENCE OF X is supported by evidence.
Astronomers have uncovered evidence of a star as bright as the full moon.
Here, the portion in red conveys the following meaning:
The EXISTENCE of a star as bright as the full moon is supported by evidence.

evidence + that-clause serves to convey that the occurrence of a particular EVENT -- the event expressed in the that-clause -- is supported by evidence.
Astronomers have uncovered evidence that a star as bright as the full moon exploded into view 340,000 years ago.
Here, the portion in red conveys the following meaning:
The occurrence of a particular EVENT -- that a star as bright as the full moon exploded into view 340,000 years ago -- is supported by evidence.

GMATGuruNY wrote:Answer choice B has been transcribed incorrectly.
It should read as follows:

Astronomers have uncovered evidence that a star that was as bright as the full moon exploding into view 340.000 years ago, emitting dazzling radiation that could have disrupted Earth's protective ozone layer and sunburned our Stone Age ancestors.
A. that a star that was as bright as the full moon exploding into view 340,000 years ago, emitting
B. that a star as bright as the full moon exploded into view 340,000 years ago, emitting
C. of a star that was as bright as the full moon exploding into view 340,000 years ago and that it emitted
D. of a star as bright as the full moon, exploding into view 340,000 years ago and emitting
E. of a star as bright as the full moon that exploded into view 340,000 years ago and that emitted

A and C: the full moon exploding
Here, exploding seems to refer to the full moon, implying that THE FULL MOON was EXPLODING.
Not the intended meaning.
The intended intended meaning is that a STAR exploded.
Eliminate A.

Generally, COMMA + VERBing serves to refer to the PRECEDING SUBJECT.
D: Scientists have uncovered evidence of a star, exploding into view 340,000 years ago.
Here, exploding seems to refer to scientists -- the preceding subject -- implying that SCIENTISTS have been EXPLODING -- a nonsensical meaning.
Eliminate D.

E: the full moon that exploded
Here, that exploded seems to refer to the full moon, implying that THE FULL MOON EXPLODED.
Not the intended meaning.
The intended intended meaning is that a STAR exploded.
Eliminate E.

The correct answer is B.

Hi GMATGuruNY ,

Just a quick question.

Here COMMA+EMITTING refers to the Astronomers-- implying that when the Astronomers have uncovered the evidence, then at the same time Astronomers EMITTING dazzling radiation..

Is my understanding right?

Please confirm and correct me if I misunderstood anything.

Many thanks in advance.

Kavin

Needgmat wrote: Hi GMATGuruNY ,

Just a quick question.

Here COMMA+EMITTING refers to the Astronomers-- implying that when the Astronomers have uncovered the evidence, then at the same time Astronomers EMITTING dazzling radiation..

Is my understanding right?

Please confirm and correct me if I misunderstood anything.

Many thanks in advance.

Kavin

Generally, COMMA + VERBing serves to modify the NEAREST preceding subject and verb.
OA: a star as bright as the full moon exploded into view 340,000 years ago, emitting dazzling radiation.
Here, COMMA + emitting serves to modify a star exploded, conveying that the star was EMITTING dazzling radiation when it EXPLODED into view.

Generally, COMMA + VERBing serves to modify the NEAREST preceding subject and verb.
OA: a star as bright as the full moon exploded into view 340,000 years ago, emitting dazzling radiation.
Here, COMMA + emitting serves to modify a star exploded, conveying that the star was EMITTING dazzling radiation when it EXPLODED into view.

[/quote]

Hi GMATGuruNY ,

Thank you so much for your explanation.

Thanks,

Kavin