Sixty-five million years ago, according to some scientists

[srikanth.devidi]

Thanks Tim and Samarpan!

[jnelson0612]

Thanks!

[muralik.abm]

Ron/Stacey,

E. an event that caused the plant and animal extinctions that mark

Yes, E is correct.

Why do we have to use an appositive (an evnet) in option E.

Can't we simply say

"causing the plant and animal extinctions that mark"

- making sure that the result from the preceding independent clause (an asteroid slammed into North America) caused the plant and animal extinctions

isn't it a preferred (in GMAT lang.) one to the one (choice E) that uses an appositive (an event)

My apologies if i am slightly off the topic.

Regards,
Murali.

Regards,
Murali.

[RonPurewal]

Why do we have to use an appositive (an evnet) in option E.

we don't have to; it's just one phrasing that works.

just because one version of a sentence is correct, you can't assume that other versions are incorrect!

Can't we simply say

"causing the plant and animal extinctions that mark"

- making sure that the result from the preceding independent clause (an asteroid slammed into North America) caused the plant and animal extinctions

that seems ok to me, too.

isn't it a preferred (in GMAT lang.) one to the one (choice E) that uses an appositive (an event)

well, both are legitimate.
even if one of them is "preferred", that issue is irrelevant from the standpoint of a gmat student -- you will never be faced with two correct versions of a sentence and forced to select the "preferred" version. your only job here is to tell right from wrong.
sentence correction is already difficult enough; there's little sense in adding additional, unnecessary layers of distinction, such as "preferred"/"not preferred". that just takes something that's already hard and makes it harder!

--

if there is a distinction, i'd say the appositive allows for more indirect causation. i.e., if you use the comma -ING modifier, then there's a sense that the causation was immediate and direct; if you use the appositive, that *could* still be the meaning, but the appositive also allows for the possibility that "the event" set off a chain of events that caused the extinctions more indirectly after a number of steps.

[akriti_13]

I had the same question as Murali did.

Thanks Ron for the excellent explanation. :)

[RonPurewal]

good stuff

[rachelhong2012]

Hi instructors,

I was debating between D and E. After reading Stacey's explanation, I'm still not so sure what "it" in D is referring to:

D. an event that caused plant and animal extinctions, and it marks

can "it" be referring to "an asteroid bigger than Mount Everest slammed into North America" baseed on how this parallelism is set up?

Thanks!

[tim]

my best guess would be the event, but keep in mind D is not the correct answer anyway, so the pronoun confusion is not surprising.. :)

[rachelhong2012]

my best guess would be the event, but keep in mind D is not the correct answer anyway, so the pronoun confusion is not surprising.. :)

I see, thanks Tim!

[RonPurewal]

.

[vijayjakhotia]

Ron

As per some of your earlier posts, We need to have abstract nouns in the appositive modifier to modify the entire clause. Here we have 'an event' which can be seen by our eyes, then how are we calling it an Abstract Noun? Am I missing something here?

Thanks
Vijay

[RonPurewal]

Ron

As per some of your earlier posts, We need to have abstract nouns in the appositive modifier to modify the entire clause. Here we have 'an event' which can be seen by our eyes, then how are we calling it an Abstract Noun? Am I missing something here?

Thanks
Vijay

an event is not something that you can literally see/taste/touch/smell/whatever. you can literally see the participants, etc., but the event itself is an abstract notion.

for instance, you can see tanks, soldiers, bullets, helmets, etc., but you can't see a war.

in any case, the distinction isn't very important, anyway. just know that these kinds of modifiers can do either of 2 things:
1/ describe the noun that comes right before them
2/ describe the whole clause that comes before them
as long as you understand that both of these are possibilities, you are fine.

[HanzZ]

Hello Experts,

In the correct answer, a restrictive clause "that mark" is used to describe extinctions. It seems to imply that there are other extinctions of the plant and animal besides the one marking the end of the ear, doesn't it?

Thank you for your explanation.

[RonPurewal]

Hello Experts,

In the correct answer, a restrictive clause "that mark" is used to describe extinctions. It seems to imply that there are other extinctions of the plant and animal besides the one marking the end of the ear, doesn't it?

That's exactly what is implied... and exactly what should be implied.

Extinctions happen all the time. (According to this estimate, at least 10,000 species go extinct every year.)

Even if you don't know this, it's certainly not an unreasonable or farfetched idea, so it's not grounds for elimination.

[HanzZ]

That's exactly what is implied... and exactly what should be implied.

Extinctions happen all the time. (According to this estimate, at least 10,000 species go extinct every year.)

Even if you don't know this, it's certainly not an unreasonable or farfetched idea, so it's not grounds for elimination.

I see it now. Thanks for the quick reply.