Astronomers have uncovered evidence that a star that

[eyunni]

This comes from the 2nd GMAT Prep exam.

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


While I understand the correct answer choice, I have a specific question. The participial phrase : "emitting dazzling radiation that could have disrupted Earth's protective ozone layer and sunburned our Stone Age ancestors" modifies the noun closest to it in the preceding clause? Or does it modify the subject of the preceding clause? Instructors, please help.

[jwinawer]

This comes from the 2nd GMAT Prep exam.

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


While I understand the correct answer choice, I have a specific question. The participial phrase : "emitting dazzling radiation that could have disrupted Earth's protective ozone layer and sunburned our Stone Age ancestors" modifies the noun closest to it in the preceding clause? Or does it modify the subject of the preceding clause? Instructors, please help.

Hi eyunni,

The participial phrase has some flexibility. It could modify the immediately preceding noun, the subject of the preceding clause, or the whole preceding clause. Note that this contrasts with modifiers introduced by which; those modifiers are more strict and generally only modify the immediately preceding noun or noun phrase. Here, the participial phrase modifies "a star".

By the way, in the future please post the official answer, which I assume is B.

[Guest]

Hi jonathan-

Can you please explain why E can not be the best answer here? I think the OA should be E

[rohitmonga83]

Hi jonathan-

Can you please explain why E can not be the best answer here? I think the OA should be E

E cannot be the answer coz...

Moon that.. exploded... ( is wrong!!)..

Moon never exploded.. star did ;-)

[RonPurewal]

Hi jonathan-

Can you please explain why E can not be the best answer here? I think the OA should be E

* the "that" modifier is ambiguous. it's supposed to modify "a star as bright as the full moon", but we could also read it as modifying "the full moon" itself.

* "that exploded..." and "that emitted..." are in parallel, even though they shouldn't be.
if you use these in parallel, separated by the word "and" (as is done in choice e), then the (incorrect) implication is that they represent two separate, not-necessarily-related actions.
that's wrong. one of these things (emitting...) is a SUB-EVENT of the other, so they should NOT be in parallel. instead, the sub-event should be subordinated with an -ing modifier, exactly as is done in (b).

[jessie-cn2007]

Hi Ron,
I have a question. In B, exploded can possibly modify moon. If this is case, B fails to follow the intended meaning of the original sentence.
Thanks~

[nik_rai]

Hi Ron,

Isn't "emitting" in B modifying Astronomers(Subject of the preceding clause).

How is it different from D?

I discarded D because "exploding" and "emitting" seem to modify astronomers.

Can you please clarify.

Regards
nik

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,

Isn't "emitting" in B modifying Astronomers(Subject of the preceding clause).

this needs to be emphasized, time and time again: DO NOT QUESTION THE CORRECT ANSWERS.
by questioning the correct answers to an official problem, you are completely wasting your time; the only thing you can do is learn from them, not rail against them. if you are surprised by a correct answer on occasion -- as we are, too -- you should seek to expand your knowledge base from that problem, not continue to question it. the question is official, so it is right and you are wrong.

in general, a COMMA -ING modifier modifies the subject and action of the DIRECTLY PRECEDING CLAUSE. if the preceding clause contains another, embedded sub- clause, which runs all the way to the conclusion of that clause, then the modifier may modify EITHER that sub-clause OR the entire surrounding clause.
as is the case with many of these things, you must use CONTEXT to tell the difference. if either of these interpretations makes sense, then you must count the sentence as legitimate.

in this case, "emitting" modifies the subject and action of
a star as bright as the full moon exploded into view 340,000 years ago
... a modification that makes perfect sense.

[sam198518]

Hi Ron,

Isn't "emitting" in B modifying Astronomers(Subject of the preceding clause).

this needs to be emphasized, time and time again: DO NOT QUESTION THE CORRECT ANSWERS.
by questioning the correct answers to an official problem, you are completely wasting your time; the only thing you can do is learn from them, not rail against them. if you are surprised by a correct answer on occasion -- as we are, too -- you should seek to expand your knowledge base from that problem, not continue to question it. the question is official, so it is right and you are wrong.

in general, a COMMA -ING modifier modifies the subject and action of the DIRECTLY PRECEDING CLAUSE. if the preceding clause contains another, embedded sub- clause, which runs all the way to the conclusion of that clause, then the modifier may modify EITHER that sub-clause OR the entire surrounding clause.
as is the case with many of these things, you must use CONTEXT to tell the difference. if either of these interpretations makes sense, then you must count the sentence as legitimate.

in this case, "emitting" modifies the subject and action of
a star as bright as the full moon exploded into view 340,000 years ago
... a modification that makes perfect sense.

Hi Ron,

Questions in which one event is as a result of the other event(for example: emitting as a result of exploding)
Can we always say that the the modifier after comma should start with ing?

If I assume this(above stated argument) to be true, only A & B remains. What I'm trying to find out here is a faster approach to such problems.

Thanks a lot for your help.

Regards,
Syed

[RonPurewal]

Questions in which one event is as a result of the other event(for example: emitting as a result of exploding)
Can we always say that the the modifier after comma should start with ing?

you shouldn't try to prescribe constructions; it's best to limit your efforts to determining whether particular constructions are correct or incorrect.

i wouldn't say "always"; there are alternative constructions for basically everything.
for instance, if i write
the hurricane-strength gusts pulled on the roof with considerable force, causing it to come loose in three places
... then i can also write
the hurricane-strength gusts exerted considerable force on the roof; as a result, it came loose in three places

[saintjingjing]

for me,B and E were confusing.

But,B) that a star as bright as the full moon exploded into view 340,000 years ago, emitting, some one says that exploded can jump to modify---> star,

but in D, that exploded can not jump. But why, can past participle can jump? Iguess it is depended on meaning. I mean in logic, the exploded---> star, so it can jump, right? but in E, why "that exploded" can not jump to modify star according to logic?

[tim]

"exploded" is not a modifier in B; it is a verb..

[saptadeepc]

Questions in which one event is as a result of the other event(for example: emitting as a result of exploding)
Can we always say that the the modifier after comma should start with ing?

you shouldn't try to prescribe constructions; it's best to limit your efforts to determining whether particular constructions are correct or incorrect.

i wouldn't say "always"; there are alternative constructions for basically everything.
for instance, if i write
the hurricane-strength gusts pulled on the roof with considerable force, causing it to come loose in three places
... then i can also write
the hurricane-strength gusts exerted considerable force on the roof; as a result, it came loose in three places

Ron --

Even though option 'D' is wrong, I have a doubt.

Can the modifier "exploding" be ambiguous ?

it can modify astronomers, the action of the preceding clause. moon as well as the stars ?

I want to understand whether we can strike out an answer where ",ING" can be ambiguous. Especially in sentences with sub clause and more than 1 NOUN.

[RonPurewal]

Can the modifier "exploding" be ambiguous ?

it can modify astronomers, the action of the preceding clause. moon as well as the stars ?

it must modify the action of the preceding clause and be pertinent to the subject of that clause; that's how that type of modifier works.

I want to understand whether we can strike out an answer where ",ING" can be ambiguous. Especially in sentences with sub clause and more than 1 NOUN.

no.
if there is this sort of "ambiguity", then you can just use common sense to assign the modifier. as long as it properly modifies a preceding clause, it's good.
see this (from another forum):
http://www.beatthegmat.com/modifier-iss ... tml#391917

[sabharwal.bhavna]

I have a doubt with the correct answer choice B. It states, "as the full moon exploded into view...". Does this not mean that the moon itself exploded? Without any comma, how can we assume that the star was the object that exploded?
With option D, we find that the two structures "exploding.." and "emitting" are parallel. They may not be sub-events of each other but instead separate events that occurred one after another? So, the star first exploded and then started to emit. The +ing structure of "exploding" is just after comma, so it may be modifying the full moon also. An ambiguity in itself.
Kindly clarify.
Thanks.