Frankenstein wrote:

atulmangal wrote: I think -ed modifier can also modify the preceding NOUN PHRASE just like COMMA + WHICH modifies???

Hi,
Even I feel the same because a noun phrases performs every role in a sentence that a noun can perform.

atulmangal wrote:

Frankenstein wrote:

atulmangal wrote: Moreover, in the correct option, please take a look at the meaning:

Over the past 50 years,most of the development in satellite engineering has been due to laws of physics,since it is based either on Einstein's work on relativity or on Newton's work on gravity.

In this correct option if IT is referring to DEVELOPMENT, then in that case, because of this word SINCE, the sentence somewhere means that all the "Einstein's work on relativity or on Newton's work on gravity" is considered to be the laws of physics, which is nonsensical.
why i'm saying this is the implied meaning, see the simplified version of the problem:

development in satellite engineering is due to laws of physics
since (because)
development is based on Einstein's / Newton' work

Hi,
I will just comment on your quotes and not on the OA.
Since development is based on either of the two works, which in turn are due to the laws of physics, he concludes that the development has been due to laws of physics.

Hi Thanks for replying, but still unclear. Let me put my point in other way. Suppose i change the order of the clauses appearing th OA okay....

Original:

Over the past 50 years,most of the development in satellite engineering has been due to laws of physics,since it is based either on Einstein's work on relativity or on Newton's work on gravity.

Change the order of clauses:

since it is based either on Einstein's work on relativity or on Newton's work on gravity, most of the development in satellite engineering has been due to laws of physics.

Now, don't u think the sentence is suggesting that because the development is based on Einstein's work on relativity or on Newton's work on gravity thats why development has been due to laws of physics.

See, logically u agree that all the Newton's work or Einstein's work is not the laws, a part of it become laws right??? that means since development is based on work only (some of which may not be laws) it is illogical to conclude that all the development has been due to laws of physics...right??. If u read the sentence, its moreover like a CR argument, where "since..." part is premise and "moreover..." part is conclusion.

I know m thinking too much but logical and meaning based questions are now common in GMAT, thats why i asked for the source of this problem from the original poster but he didn't replied back.

What do u think on this...

atulmangal wrote:

Frankenstein wrote:

atulmangal wrote: I think -ed modifier can also modify the preceding NOUN PHRASE just like COMMA + WHICH modifies???

Hi,
Even I feel the same because a noun phrases performs every role in a sentence that a noun can perform.

Hi, if u think the same, can u suggest, why the other Op is wrong then. I find nothing wrong in that modifier logically modifying "laws of physics"...i mean in that case i find the sentence meaningful. What do u think???