BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Astronomers have uncovered evidence

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:32 am
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:14 members

Astronomers have uncovered evidence

by aditya8062 » Sat May 17, 2014 6:22 am
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

my doubt :i want to ask about the initial construction of option E :
Astronomers have uncovered evidence of a star as bright as the full moon.
is it logical to say that we can uncover the evidence of a star ? honestly i am not able to eliminate option E using this consideration because i feel that it is a valid construction .
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:28 am
Thanked: 3 times

by moumi2013 » Sat May 17, 2014 7:36 am
uncovered evidence (of anything)--
To disclose OR reveal
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Sat May 17, 2014 1:02 pm
aditya8062 wrote: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

my doubt :i want to ask about the initial construction of option E :
Astronomers have uncovered evidence of a star as bright as the full moon.
is it logical to say that we can uncover the evidence of a star ? honestly i am not able to eliminate option E using this consideration because i feel that it is a valid construction .
E: a star as bright as the full moon that exploded
Implied comparison:
a star [that was] as bright as the full moon that exploded [was bright]
Because the implied comparison essentially turns the full moon into a subject (the full moon was bright), it is not possible for that exploded to modify the intended referent (a star).
As a result, E implies that THE FULL MOON exploded.
Not the intended meaning.
Eliminate E.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: US
Thanked: 527 times
Followed by:227 members

by e-GMAT » Mon May 19, 2014 12:20 pm
aditya8062 wrote:
my doubt :i want to ask about the initial construction of option E :
Astronomers have uncovered evidence of a star as bright as the full moon.
is it logical to say that we can uncover the evidence of a star ? honestly i am not able to eliminate option E using this consideration because i feel that it is a valid construction .
Hi @aditya8062,

Logically, we can use 'evidence of', but it must fit the context.

For example, here are some typical ways in which 'evidence of' and 'evidence that' are used:

"¢ Experts examining the power plant found no evidence of leaks.
"¢ The economy has shown evidence of a slowdown in the recent past.
"¢ The government has insisted that there is no evidence that the recent employment cuts were targeted at specific industries.
"¢ Geologists have discovered evidence that some of the glaciers in the Arctic have survived previous eras of global warming.

Examining how these sentences are constructed, we can see that 'evidence of' is typically followed by a noun, whereas 'evidence that' is followed by a clause. So the usage of these terms depends on the intended meaning of the sentence. If we mean that we have found evidence of a noun, we use 'evidence of'. If we mean that we have found evidence of a particular action, we use 'evidence that' followed by a clause.

Let's use this understanding to do the meaning analysis for this sentence and understand which of the two phrases we need to use in this context.

Meaning Analysis

"¢ Astronomers have uncovered evidence that a star
 that was as bright as the full moon

So, the sentence starts off by telling us that astronomers have discovered evidence about something. This evidence is about a star that was as bright as the full moon.

o 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.

This part tells us what the evidence shows about the star. It shows that this bright star exploded into view a certain amount of time ago. It also shows that the star emitted a high amount of radiation. This radiation could have affected both Earth's ozone layer and people who lived during the Stone Age.

So, the intended meaning here is clearly that the astronomers have found evidence of some actions. They haven't just found proof that this star existed. They've found proof that the star (1) exploded into view and (2) emitted radiation.

Now let's look at option E in the light of this meaning analysis.

Process of Elimination: Option E

Based on the intended meaning of this sentence, we clearly need to use 'evidence that' in this context. Option E says that "Astronomers have discovered evidence of a star". The use of "evidence of" in this context doesn't convey the intended meaning precisely. So, while you're right that "evidence of" is a valid logical construction, as we've seen in the examples above, "evidence that" is correct in this context since it conveys the intended meaning clearly. There is also some meaning ambiguity in option E since it isn't clear what exploded, but I won't go into that since Mitch has already explained it above. :-)

I hope this analysis helps!

Regards,
Meghna
Top
Post new topic Locked
• Page 1 of 1