E for me.
A. "after which...and subsequently" seem redundant. Also, the wording "repeated impacts broke the surface apart" seems awkward/unclear...
B. "it" isn't clear -- could be Miranda or surface. Also "having" is not needed. "rejoined with" makes it sound that the pieces literally joined with "mutual gravitational attraction"...not because of, or due to, etc.
C. "through repeated impacts that the surface broke apart" is awkward and sounds like a run-on. Also, "after which" and subsequently" is redundant.
D. "broke apart with repeated impacts" is odd/unclear. "having" is not needed.
E. Clear and concise. Shows that the surface broke apart as a result of repeated impacts AND rejoined through a process (mutual gravitational attraction)
sondenso wrote:
Because Miranda, the smallest moon of Uranus, has a large number of different surface features, including craters, mountains, valleys, and fractures, some astronomers suggest that at one time
repeated impacts broke the surface apart, and after which the fragments were subsequently rejoined because of mutual gravitational attraction.
(A) repeated impacts broke the surface apart, and after which the fragments were subsequently rejoined because of
(B) repeated impacts on the surface broke it apart, after which the fragments having rejoined with
(C) through repeated impacts that the surface broke apart, after which the fragments subsequently rejoined by
(D) the surface broke apart with repeated impacts, after which the fragments having rejoined through
(E) the surface broke apart as a result of repeated impacts, after which the fragments rejoined through
Do you see any trap? I did it 2 times, one right, one wrong!