One more knewton

[gmatmachoman]

Democritus's theory of there being a set of indivisible particles making up all matter bears a striking resemblance to modern atomic theory.


of there being a set of indivisible particles making up all matter bears a striking resemblance to modern atomic theory

of a set of indivisible particles that makes up all matter bears a striking resemblance to modern atomic theory

that a set of indivisible particles makes up all matter bears a striking resemblance to modern atomic theory

which is that there is a set of indivisible particles making up all matter bears a striking resemblance to modern atomic theory

which bears a striking resemblance to modern atomic theory is that there is a set of indivisible particles making up all matter

[hardik.jadeja]

IMO C

if you want to use "theory of", then "of" should be followed by a noun or a noun phrase.

Its okay to say "theory of indivisible particles" but if you want to mention what the theory is all about then you should use "that" instead of "of". Eg: "Lucise's theory that the Earth is flat was easily accepted."

Only C is using "that"

[kvcpk]

IMO C.

which cannot be used because there is no comma(,) after theory. so D,E are out.

Being is invalid in GMAT.. So A is out

Democritus's theory was about the existence of indivisible particles and not abou the indivisible particles in particular.
So B is ruled out.

[martin.jonson007]

C is Correct...!

[gmatmachoman]

IMO C

if you want to use "theory of", then "of" should be followed by a noun or a noun phrase.

Its okay to say "theory of indivisible particles" but if you want to mention what the theory is all about then you should use "that" instead of "of". Eg: "Lucise's theory that the Earth is flat was easily accepted."

Only C is using "that"

Dont u think "bears" could also refer back to "matter"??

Plz explain

[hardik.jadeja]

Dont u think "bears" could also refer back to "matter"??
Plz explain

If 'bears' refers to 'matter', then the meaning of the sentence looks awkward to me. Plus it sounds like an incomplete thought.

[pnk]

All matter - object in the clause 'a set of indivisible particles makes up all matter' and so can't function as subject of the verb bears.

Only two possibilities: theory or a set of particles....

'a set..'can't function as subject ....bcoz of resemblance to atomic theory.

Only 'theory' can be the subject of bears'

[pradeepkaushal9518]

THEORY ALWAYS TAKES "THAT". HENCE C IS CORRECT

[hardik.jadeja]

THEORY ALWAYS TAKES "THAT". HENCE C IS CORRECT

"Theory of" and "Theory that" both are correct.

Eg: The general theory of relativity is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915.

The difference is..

"Theory of" must be followed by a noun or a noun phrase.
"Theory that" must be followed by a clause. To be specific, the correct structure is - theory + relative clause with pronoun "that"

As you can see, option A is using neither a noun nor a noun phrase following "theory of".

Option B, correctly uses a noun "a set of indivisible particles", but "a set of indivisible particles that makes up all matter" changes the meaning of the sentence. It seems like we are talking about a subset of indivisible particles.

Option C correctly follows the structure - - theory + relative clause with pronoun "that". In option C relative clause is "that a set of indivisible particles makes up all matter"

Hope that helps..

[rockeyb]

Democritus's theory of there being a set of indivisible particles making up all matter bears a striking resemblance to modern atomic theory.


of there being a set of indivisible particles making up all matter bears a striking resemblance to modern atomic theory

of a set of indivisible particles that makes up all matter bears a striking resemblance to modern atomic theory

that a set of indivisible particles makes up all matter bears a striking resemblance to modern atomic theory

which is that there is a set of indivisible particles making up all matter bears a striking resemblance to modern atomic theory

which bears a striking resemblance to modern atomic theory is that there is a set of indivisible particles making up all matter

Is this a typo error . If its not then C can not be correct .

Subject - Particles(plural)

Verb - makes (singular)

My take A .

[hardik.jadeja]

Is this a typo error . If its not then C can not be correct .

Subject - Particles(plural)

Verb - makes (singular)

My take A .

There is no typo and the answer is C.
Check question 1 here - https://www.knewton.com/gmat/sample-ques ... correction

In "a set of indivisible particles makes up all matter", the subject is "a set"(singular) not "Particles"(plural).

[sumanr84]

A is out due to "being".
+1 for hardik..good explanation.

Option : C
a set of indivisible particles makes , "of indivisible particles" is just the prepositional phrase and has no bearing on the verb.

[missionGMAT007]

IMO C
theory that - is right
theory of <noun> - requires a noun after 'theory of'

[The Jock]

I fully understand this question and I am sure that C is the correct answer.
But I have a question, "Is being is so untouchable that we can remove one answer choice just for being?".
Please clarify and I would be really glad If someody could give examples for both usage also.

[hardik.jadeja]

I fully understand this question and I am sure that C is the correct answer.
But I have a question, "Is being is so untouchable that we can remove one answer choice just for being?".
Please clarify and I would be really glad If someody could give examples for both usage also.

No. There are so many questions in which the correct answers contain 'being'. If it is possible to create a better sentence without using 'being' and still able to maintain the same meaning, then 'being' is unnecessary. But if 'being' is unavoidable, then you have no choice but to choose an option that contains 'being'.