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.
