bagdbmba wrote:
Digging in sediments in northern China, evidence has been gathered by scientists suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than they had previously thought.
(A) evidence has been gathered by scientists suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than they had
(B) evidence gathered by scientists suggests a much earlier emergence of complex life-forms than had been
(C) scientists have gathered evidence suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than
(D) scientists have gathered evidence that suggests a much earlier emergence of complex life-forms than that which was
(E) scientists have gathered evidence which suggests a much earlier emergence of complex life-forms than that
I'm not able to understand why C is preferred over E?
IMO, in option E -emergence of complex life-forms actually (per the evidence) is compared to that previously thought. It seems more clear to me where as option C sounds better but misses 'that' I guess.
Please explain.
krakgmat wrote:
Mike, Can you please clarify the question below. Especially, why choice D is not correct? Thank you for your help. Thanks
Dear
bagdbmba &
krakgmat,
I'm happy to respond.

You are asking about
(E) &
(D) respectively, so I will ignore
(A) &
(B), which are clearly wrong.
First of all, look at the split "
evidence that" vs. "
evidence which" ---- which of these two is correct? See these two posts:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/that-vs-which-on-the-gmat/https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-gramm ... modifiers/The fact that there is no comma following the word "
evidence" means that the modifier following it is a vital noun modifier, a.k.a. a restrictive modifier. The GMAT always uses "that" for restrictive/vital modifiers, and always uses "
which" for non-restrictive/non-vital modifiers. Thus, the "
which" is wrong here: that's one problem with
(E).
Here's the larger issue. Think about it this way. Let's state the sentence without dropping any of the repeated words in parallel. Let's pretend we can't omit anything and have to state everything explicitly. Then, we would have:
Digging in sediments in northern China, scientists have gathered evidence suggesting that complex life-forms emerged much earlier than when complex life-forms were previously thought to emerge.
Clearly, that's very awkward and much too long. We are allowed to drop everything among those orange words that are a repeat or are obvious form context. The only piece that is truly different from the part before the word "
than" is "previously thought", so that's all we need.
(C) .....
than previously thought. Clear, concise, unambiguous, and grammatically correct.
(D) .....
than that which was previously thought --- very wordy, and it's unclear to what the word "
that" refers
(E) .....
than that previously thought -- it's unclear to what the word "
that" refers.
Think about
"that previously thought" --- to what does the "
that" refer? What exactly is "
previously thought"? What did the scientist think at an earlier time? This really refers to the verb, to the action of the verb "
emerged" --- previously, scientists thought that these critters emerged later, and now the evidence suggest that they emerged earlier. The entire comparison revolves around the verb --- when did they
emerge. We cannot use the pronoun "
that" to refer to the action of a verb. If we want to use "
that" correctly, we would have to change around the whole sentence -----
.....
gathered evidence suggesting that complex life-forms had an emergence that was much earlier than that previously thought.
Now, that version is an abominable trainwreck. Even in this version, that word "
that" is entirely optional --- the phrase "
than previously thought" is still 100% correct by itself, but at least in this sentence, the "
that" isn't absolutely wrong when it's included, because there's a clear noun antecedent. In choices
(D) &
(E), the word "
that" is 100% wrong, because it is trying to refer to the action of a verb, which is not allowed.
This is why
(C) is not only the best answer but the only possible answer.
Does all this make sense?
Mike

Thanks for your detailed explanation.
". But in the first article that you've shared, in the example "1) Bartholomew doesn’t like people who talk too much." - 'who' without commas, is a restrictive modifier and this sentence is correct per GMAT. Right?
That means there are exceptions. We can't just eliminate option E because 'who' is NOT preceded by a 'comma' ?
ii] 'that' in option E refers to the emergence of complex life-forms I think and it's not verb. Right? Please clarify.