A recent study of ancient clay deposits has provided new evidence

Apart from, Idiom and style, let’s see how far grammar can come to our aid in this case.
First: “That” is being used as relative pronoun in four choices. In Choice A, “that” refers to the impact; did the fires cause extinction or the impact caused the extinction? .Obviously the fires that were the result of the impact caused the destruction. .In E too, the causal agent is referred to as the impact. This is also wrong reference.
In C and D, what does the word ‘that’ used as a demonstrative pronoun refer to? A demonstrative pronoun such as “that” cannot be a bare pronoun.

So A, C, D and E are all out. Now what are we left with except B? That is the answer and shortest road to Rome .
_________________

Let's look at D:

A recent study of ancient clay deposits has provided new evidence in support of the theory
1- that global forest fires were ignited by a meteorite impact
conjunction: "and"
2- that contributed to the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other creatures some 65 million years ago

as you can see, and would introduce a second restrictive clause. The second one starts with "that" but would not make any sense because how can the theory contribute to the extinction of...?

C is out because "evidence supporting" present particple is much more concise than "evidence that supports". Remember, GMAT is about conciness as well.

It is between A and B.
theory of: when it is a set of widely accepted theories/facts/principles
Ex: theory of relativity, theory of Darwin
theory that: a belief, a hypothesis
Ex: theory that apes are more intelligent than chimpanzees, theory that global forest fires... etc.

B.

A suggests that the meteorite impact is the contributor of extinction. This is not the intended meaning.

B is correct since B clearly shows that forest fires are the contributors of extinction.

A. Theory is not named as "theory of global forest fires"...
B. Hold it
C. Bad comparision ..It sounds as though theory had contributed to the extinction..
D.global forest contributed to to the extinction of the dinosaurs..not the theory.
E. Awkward.

IMO B

Lets go choice by choice:

A. supporting the theory of global forest fires ignited by a meteorite impact that.
Here I feel that the meaning comming from this is short. Means, supporting the
"theory of global forest fire" . What ever is written after this seems to modify "theory of global forest fire". Also the use of that is bit of confusing.

(C) that supports the theory of global forest fires that were ignited by a meteorite impact and that

that supports........that were......and that.....
Too long

(D) in support of the theory that global forest fires were ignited by a meteorite impact and that

Here in support of is a correct usage. However the passive construction as in "global forest fires were ignited by a meteorite impact " is not preferred in GMAT. also the second that incirrectly separate one idea into two.

(E) of support for the theory of a meteorite impact that ignited global forest fires and

Same problem as A.

(B) supporting the theory that global forest fires ignited by a meteorite impact

Here supporting correctly modifies the evidences that suport the theroy that......... (complete theory). Hence I guess its correct.

Please correct me whereever I have gone wrong

We need the theory that...

Otherwise it would read like:

The theory of global forest fires? That's not the theory

The theory that global forest fires ignited by a meteorite impact... the whole clause is the theory

So A,C,E are out

Now between B and D

D is wrong because that 'and that' is totally unecessary and changes the intended meaning

Hence B stands

Cheers
J

Hi All,

First of all don't get distracted by "evidence that" in option C as I feel that has been placed as a distraction. Gmat generally test the knowledge of "evidence that" vs "evidence of", However this question does not test that concept primarily since this question is more meaning oriented. If you have any doubts regarding the "evidence that" vs "evidence of" concept, you can find a very crisp article by egmat in the following link : evidence-of-versus-evidence-that-171574.html

Anyway, coming back to the original question, I will suggest using the egmat 's 3 step approach and solving the question:

Meaning analysis: I have broken down the sentence and I suggest you pause after each line.

A recent study of ancient clay deposits has provided new evidence
supporting the theory --> supporting modifies the evidence
of global forest fires ignited by a meteorite impact-- > The phrase in green color is providing more information about the fires
that contributed to the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other creatures some 65 million years ago. -- > contributed is supposed to modify forest fires

Error Analysis:

1. "Theory of" --> this is incorrect since global forest fire is not the name of the theory. What we intend to do is actually state the theory
2. " theory of global forest fires that contributed" -- "That" doesnt clearly refers to "fires" and makes the reader believe that the theory contributed to the extinction.

Answers analysis:

(A) supporting the theory of global forest fires ignited by a meteorite impact that --> Explained in the error analysis

(B) supporting the theory that global forest fires ignited by a meteorite impact -- > clearly addresses all the mistakes in the original question

(C) that supports the theory of global forest fires that were ignited by a meteorite impact and that --> "theory of" is incorrect as explained in the error analysis

(D) in support of the theory that global forest fires were ignited by a meteorite impact and that --> Here there the second "that" again refers to the theory and incorrectly implies that the theory contributed to extinction

(E) of support for the theory of a meteorite impact that ignited global forest fires and--> There are more than one problems in this statement but " theory of" is good enough to strike this off

A recent study of ancient clay deposits has provided new evidence supporting the theory of global forest fires ignited by a meteorite impact that contributed to the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other creatures some 65 million years ago.


A. supporting the theory of global forest fires ignited by a meteorite impact that
> by using that after meteorite impact, we are saying that it was the meteorite impact that contributed to the extinction. There is a meaning change.
B. supporting the theory that global forest fires ignited by a meteorite impact
> B is correct. It conveys the intended meaning that the evidence supports the theory that forest fires contributed to the extinction of dinosaurs.

C. that supports the theory of global forest fires that were ignited by a meteorite impact and that
> Subject + verb + THAT + subject + verb is the correct construction (refer to MGMAT SC for this rule). There is no subject after that, so we can eliminate C.

D. in support of the theory that global forest fires were ignited by a meteorite impact and that
> The parallelism leads to awkward meaning. The theory suggest two things - 1. the theory that global forest fires were ignited by a meteorite; 2. the theory that contributed.... This is nonsensical, how can a theory contribute to mass extinctions of dinosaurs.

E. of support for the theory of a meteorite impact that ignited global forest fires and
> The evidence is of the theory of global forest fires not of the support. If we go by the meaning in E, then we are suggesting that in the evidence, we found support for the theory such as a past account of someone else who supported the theory.

It is a problem with the subject+verb agreement.
Global forest being the subject, is for the extinction of dinosaurs.

A recent study of ancient clay deposits has provided new evidence supporting the theory of global forest fires ignited by a meteorite impact that contributed to the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other creatures some 65 million years ago.


A. supporting the theory of global forest fires ignited by a meteorite impact that

of + simple noun. What comes after of is pretty complex. It is better to replace it with that. In addition, it changes the intended meaning: it should be a theory that global forest fires contributed to extinction. Not a theory of global forest fires.

B. supporting the theory that global forest fires ignited by a meteorite impact

Correct.

C. that supports the theory of global forest fires that were ignited by a meteorite impact and that

the "and that" is very ambiguous and illogical here.

If you say "that" refers to global forest fires, it is wrong!! In GMAT, "that" can NEVER replace a preceding noun/subject. Instead, we should use "it/they". And "that" is usually used in comparisons and usually followed by modifiers.
Example: The amount of food eaten by me is more than that eaten by him.

Some other people might say that, " and that" is parallel with the preceding that. Wrong!! If it is parallel, then "the evidence" would "contributed to the extinction" --> illogical.

Either way, C is wrong.

D. in support of the theory that global forest fires were ignited by a meteorite impact and that

"and that" is wrong by similar explanation as the one in C. It cannot be parallel to the preceding noun because the "theory" did not contribute to the extinction.

E. of support for the theory of a meteorite impact that ignited global forest fires and

"of" is wrong here, same as A and C.
_________________

in the combination
theory+noun

the noun must be an action noun. we say the theory of event or phenominon, we can not say theory of entity/phisical/nominative thing.

we can use "theory +that-clause"
this is clear that we have to say a theory of event but we can use that-clause to encode event

so, there are two ways to present an event, action noun or that-clause. either can go with "theory" correctly

"theory of fires" is no sense.

Here's the official explanation provided by the GMAC for this question:

This sentence discusses evidence supporting a theory that a meteorite impact ignited global forest fires, and that these fires then contributed to many species' extinction. The sentence includes a complex series of nested noun phrases, resulting in potential confusion about which noun is modified by ignited and which is the subject for contributed. The underlined portion of the sentence must be worded to concisely and unambiguously resolve any such confusion. Idiomatically, the theory being discussed should be described as a theory that certain events occurred, not a theory of those events occurring.

Option A: The phrasing is convoluted and difficult to parse; the structure leaves unclear whether ignited modifies fires or theory, and also whether fires or impact is the intended subject for contributed. Idiomatically, the theory being discussed should be described as a theory that certain events occurred, not a theory of those events occurring.

Option B: Correct. This concise wording clearly and unambiguously shows that ignited modifies fires and also that fires is the intended subject for contributed. The phrase theory that is idiomatically appropriate in the context.

Option C: Idiomatically, the theory being discussed should be described as a theory that certain events occurred, not a theory of the events that occurred. This wording appears to indicate that the global wildfires had a theory. Otherwise, the wording is unnecessarily verbose.

Option D: In this context, the phrase in support of is an unnecessarily wordy substitute for supporting. The clauses following the first that and the second that should be grammatically parallel, but the first clause includes a subject and the second apparently does not. If the second that is intended as a relative pronoun serving as the subject of the second clause, then its grammatical function is not parallel to the first that's function, making the sentence structure confusing.

Option E: It is odd to say that a study of ancient clay deposits has provided evidence of support for a theory–instead the evidence is support for the theory. Idiomatically, the theory being discussed should be described as a theory that a meteor impact ignited forest fires, etc., not a theory of a meteorite impact that ignited forest fires.

The correct answer is B.

Please note that I'm not the author of this explanation. I'm just posting it here since I believe it can help the community.

A recent study of ancient clay deposits has provided new evidence supporting the theory of global forest fires ignited by a meteorite impact that contributed to the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other creatures some 65 million years ago.


A. supporting the theory of global forest fires ignited by a meteorite impact that

-- changes the meaning. This sentence says that the meteorite impact contributed to the extinction of dinosaurs, not the fires caused by the meteorite impact.

B. supporting the theory that global forest fires ignited by a meteorite impact

-- Correct. Keep.

C. that supports the theory of global forest fires that were ignited by a meteorite impact and that

-- the second 'that' is incorrect here.

D. in support of the theory that global forest fires were ignited by a meteorite impact and that

-- 'and that' is incorrect here.

E. of support for the theory of a meteorite impact that ignited global forest fires and

Answer is B.
_________________

Hello experts,
A question regarding answer choice D, if we removed the second "that" would we create a grammatically correct answer choice? forest fires 1)were ignited by a meteor impact 2) contributed to the extinction ... I think by removing "that" we fix the parallelism issue.

(I know that "supporting the theory">"In support of the theory")

Hi

Let us plug in answer option (D) after removing the second "that" as you have stated:

A recent study of ancient clay deposits has provided new evidence in support of the theory that global forest fires were ignited by a meteorite impact and contributed to the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other creatures some 65 million years ago.

Ignoring the use of "in support of", this sentence changes the structure of the sentence subtly. The original sentence (and the correct option also) states that "global forest fires ignited by a meteorite impact" is the entity contributing to the extinction, whereas the above sentence states only the "forest fires" to be the entity. According to the above sentence, the forest fires did two things:

1) they were started by a meteorite impact
2) contributed to the extinction..

While there is nothing grammatically or logically incorrect as per this version, it is wordier than option (B) and has a slight change in structure which I am not convinced is merited - option (B) is fine and concise as well. I would still go with option (B).
_________________

Can we reject C on the basis of ambiguity?? like which that would be parallel to which as the third that can be parallel to first that. IanStewart DmitryFarber GMATNinja

A recent study of ancient clay deposits has provided new evidence supporting the theory of global forest fires ignited by a meteorite impact that contributed to the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other creatures some 65 million years ago.

A. supporting the theory of global forest fires ignited by a meteorite impact that
* the theory of xxxxxxxxxxxx (whole sentence) is too long and over running = poor structure and potentially confusing
Theory of X is a common use but X should be noun rather than whole sentence, ie, Theory of Everything; Theory of electromagnetism; not theory of someone going to the park to pick up trash for recycling.

B. supporting the theory that global forest fires ignited by a meteorite impact
As explained by others

C. that supports the theory of global forest fires that were ignited by a meteorite impact and that
same as explanation in A, theory of xxxxxxx is too long
Secondly, it is unclear the second “that” is modifying new evidence or the theory of fire

D. in support of the theory that global forest fires were ignited by a meteorite impact and that
the second part and that is modifying theory, and read as:
In support of the theory that contributes to the extinction of …
While it is possible that the sentence may be implying the clay is supporting the theory, which is a theory that explains two phenomenon 1) fire was ignited by meteorite and 2) dinosaurs extinction.
One has to apply some guess work here that the sentence is trying to talk about a global fire theory that contributed to dinosaurs extinction. This ans seems to disassociate the two events, hence wrong

E. of support for the theory of a meteorite impact that ignited global forest fires and
Evidence of support while I don’t think is straight out wrong, it seems a bit awkward, because normally we talk about evidence of something; evidence of support for theory – has two layers and introduced indirectness.
Secondly, it is unsure what that is modifying.
If that applies to the meteorite impact, then similar to above the theory of xxxxxxx will be too long
If that is modifying “theory of a meteorite impact” as a subject, then it is also wrong because the theory doesn’t ignite fire and causes extinction

A implies the "theory of forest fires" is what contributed to the extinction

C Same issue as A but with a conjunction

D Same issue as A and C, but with more fluff

E Incorrect phrasing "A recent study... support" should be "supports"

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________