IT is always better if you type in the complete question as below :

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

Now, you can see why "evidence of" is wrong

1- It should be exploded and not exploding(action occurred 340000 years ago)

2- correct form "exploded" ....followed by "emitting....."(since activities occurred at the same time in the past)

3- "exploding" wrong

4- "exploding" wrong

5- "that exploded" and "that emitted" tells activity occurred at different time(which is wrong)

Have I considered idiom here - "evidence of " and "evidence that"? NO, thats not into question.

Other things are wrong in the option stem and not the idiom.

Guys, please type in the COMPLETE QUESTION, otherwise no one will respond to your query.

Thanks for you awesome explaination,
But what I am looking for is..... Is evidence that a correct idiom... what determines when to use evidence that /evidence of ? Is it Just by POE or is there any grammatical rule for that ??

Before spending your valuable time ....Please read the question ..I asked
Is there a grammatical rule to figure out when the idioms are to be used and when the normal forms can be used

The reason why I asked you for complete question is that it was not the idiom in your example that caused the problem.

You could have used "evidence of" also.


Now, for the answer for you question - "Is there a grammatical rule to figure out when the idioms are to be used and when the normal forms can be used"

Yes, idioms should always be preferred over normal form in GMAT. So there is no rule as such, but idioms have higher priority.

But in case if both the normal form and idioms are used like - "evidence that" and "evidence of" ----prefer "evidence of" unless other things in the sentence are grammatically incorrect.

I have one question here have uncovered is present perfect
Was as bright is a past tense
Why Emitting dazzling radiation- is that a correct tense

In this case why emitted dazzling radiation is wrong? because start burst out in past

Any thoughts???

Well in first sentence, that modifies the noun, evidence ,which is the object of the verb of the main clause. So nothing wrong in the use.

.Adult survivors of child abuse traditionally have had little or no chance to get their symptoms recognized and treated.

Here the infinitive phrase , to get.........., modifies "chance". thereby acting as adjective . Hence true.

subgeeth wrote:I have one question here have uncovered is present perfect
Was as bright is a past tense
Why Emitting dazzling radiation- is that a correct tense

In this case why emitted dazzling radiation is wrong? because start burst out in past

Any thoughts???

Yes, emitted dazzling radiation is also in the past but the timing is different. It means that the star exploded first and then emitted radiation which is not the case. They both occur at same time.

"explosion" and "emission" occurred at the same time. So we say - it exploded while emitting ........
or "star exploded 34000 years ago, emitting dazzling radiation........"

perfect!!!