asteroid 2000 BF19 - gmat prep

[gkammaje]

Question was posted here b4 but I could not find proper exp -

Q.Scientists have identified an asteroid, 2000 BF19, that is about half a mile wide and, if it strikes Earth, it can do tremendous damage to part of the planet but probably not cause planetwide destruction.
A. and, if it strikes Earth, it can do tremendous damage to part of the planet but
B. and, if it would strike Earth, part of the planet could experience a tremendous amount of damage but it would
C. and that, if it were to strike Earth, could do tremendous damage to part of the planet but would
D. and that, if Earth is struck by it, can do part of the planet tremendous damage, but it would
E. and that, if it strikes Earth, it could experience a tremendous amount of damage but

OA -[spoiler] C[spoiler][/spoiler]

thanks[/spoiler]

[ronniecoleman]

IMO C

if << were >> , subjunctive pharse....

[brb588]

Alright, let's try.

A. "Can" is the wrong tense; it hasn't happened, so it should be could.
B. The first "would" is used incorrectly, should be were.
C. Makes the most sense
D. Unnecessarily passive
E. Has problem with ambiguous pronoun "it"

[4meonly]

tricky one

[kaulnikhil]

Question was posted here b4 but I could not find proper exp -

Q.Scientists have identified an asteroid, 2000 BF19, that is about half a mile wide and, if it strikes Earth, it can do tremendous damage to part of the planet but probably not cause planetwide destruction.
A. and, if it strikes Earth, it can do tremendous damage to part of the planet but
B. and, if it would strike Earth, part of the planet could experience a tremendous amount of damage but it would
C. and that, if it were to strike Earth, could do tremendous damage to part of the planet but would
D. and that, if Earth is struck by it, can do part of the planet tremendous damage, but it would
E. and that, if it strikes Earth, it could experience a tremendous amount of damage but

OA -[spoiler] C[spoiler][/spoiler]

thanks[/spoiler]

sorry for opening this dead thread. Can someone please explain the issue with A?
the second it (it can) cannot be considered ambiguous based on repeats. If a pronoun is repeated it will refer to the first noun that is asteroid. I know it is a hypothetical scenario so C can be selected . But what is the grammatical mistake with A?

[rockeyb]

sorry for opening this dead thread. Can someone please explain the issue with A?
the second it (it can) cannot be considered ambiguous based on repeats. If a pronoun is repeated it will refer to the first noun that is asteroid. I know it is a hypothetical scenario so C can be selected . But what is the grammatical mistake with A?

I agree with you a tricky one .

This is all about the pronouns and tense sequence . As you have clearly pointed out the second IT is not ambiguous as its just a repeat and thus refers to the first noun .

Now coming to the tense sequence rule says :

Present action should be followed by FUTURE tense

Past action should be followed by CONDITIONAL tense .

Now lets see option A "if it strikes Earth" (present tense) needs to be followed by FUTURE tense but what do we have here "it can do tremendous damage to part of the planet but " (simple past ) so eliminate .

On the other hand lets see option C .

"if it were to strike Earth" (past tense) needs to be followed by CONDITIONAL tense and we have "could do tremendous damage to part of the planet but would " (conditional) which is correct as per the rule .

[thephoenix]

sorry for opening this dead thread. Can someone please explain the issue with A?
the second it (it can) cannot be considered ambiguous based on repeats. If a pronoun is repeated it will refer to the first noun that is asteroid. I know it is a hypothetical scenario so C can be selected . But what is the grammatical mistake with A?

A is not llel we need a second that in s/c to make it llel..........

[tanviet]

very hard. I try to say

meaning logic requires "the second that".

C is correct but is new construction. In C. "that" , a relative pronoun can be used with "it" a pronoun. both these pronoun refer to the same noun in a sentence. I rarely see this.

Testluv, Ron, Stacey. Pls, comment on this

[kaulnikhil]

sorry for opening this dead thread. Can someone please explain the issue with A?
the second it (it can) cannot be considered ambiguous based on repeats. If a pronoun is repeated it will refer to the first noun that is asteroid. I know it is a hypothetical scenario so C can be selected . But what is the grammatical mistake with A?

I agree with you a tricky one .

This is all about the pronouns and tense sequence . As you have clearly pointed out the second IT is not ambiguous as its just a repeat and thus refers to the first noun .

Now coming to the tense sequence rule says :

Present action should be followed by FUTURE tense



Past action should be followed by CONDITIONAL tense .

Now lets see option A "if it strikes Earth" (present tense) needs to be followed by FUTURE tense but what do we have here "it can do tremendous damage to part of the planet but " (simple past ) so eliminate .

On the other hand lets see option C .

"if it were to strike Earth" (past tense) needs to be followed by CONDITIONAL tense and we have "could do tremendous damage to part of the planet but would " (conditional) which is correct as per the rule .

according to Manhattan study guide ...if (present ) can be follwoed by a may or can ..
example.:
Pg 113 .. If sohie eats a pizza , the she may / can fall ill.

is it because:
it can do tremendous damage to part of the planet but probably not cause planetwide destruction.
it can do x but probably it cannot do y .
Now here if y try to fit in Y ..
It cannot do cause planet wide sensation..
this sentence doesn't make sense. Hence can be rejected .. i am not sue of the reasoning . does it make sense?

[harshavardhanc]

according to Manhattan study guide ...if (present ) can be follwoed by a may or can ..
example.:
Pg 113 .. If sohie eats a pizza , the she may / can fall ill.

is it because:
it can do tremendous damage to part of the planet but probably not cause planetwide destruction.
it can do x but probably it cannot do y .
Now here if y try to fit in Y ..
It cannot do cause planet wide sensation..
this sentence doesn't make sense. Hence can be rejected .. i am not sue of the reasoning . does it make sense?

Don't go that far. A can be eliminated without thinking about all this.

Look at the post by thephoenix.

Author's aim is to tell two qualities of the asteroid, which he tries by using and .

You need two || things on either side of and.

Option A has a non-essential modifier -- ,if it strikes Earth, . What does this modify? and?

Therefore, you need a second that , referring the asteroid, just after and and before , if it strikes Earth,

and that, if it strikes Earth, can..... would have been correct.

I think this should be clear now.