Evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 millio

Question

Project SC Butler: Day 172: Sentence Correction (SC1) 
 For SC butler Questions  Click Here

Evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs,   has been inferred from the discovery of a thin layer of crustal deposits rich in iridium.

A) Evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs,

B) The collision of a giant meteorite with the Earth some 65 million years ago, an event blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs,

C) The extinction of the dinosaurs has been blamed on evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 years ago, an event that

D) A giant meteorite, whose collision with the Earth some 65 million years ago is blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs,

E) That there was a collision of a giant meteorite with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs,

generis · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION Project SC Butler: Day 172: Sentence Correction (SC1) • HIGHLIGHTS • has been inferred in the non-underlined portion of the sentence raises the most important logical issue: what has been inferred from the discovery of iridium? -- to infer means to make an educated or informed guess based on available information. -- From the man's stack of books on his table at the cafe, I inferred that he and I might have an interesting conversation. (I have read the books or I know the subject matter contained in the books.) -- when we infer, we draw a tentative conclusion based on facts • Option E contains an interesting subject called a noun clause (or nominal clause, or substantive clause). • the big question: must comma + __ED modify only the immediately preceding noun phrase, or can that modifier also modify something else? -- blamed is an ___ED modifier in this sentence (a verbED, a past participle) -- that is, blamed is not a verb (is not the past tense of to blame) -- different test prep companies answer differently. I list the positions of four major companies below. I give you the resources to read about the different positions. • the big answer? Avoid this issue if you can. THE PROMPT THE OPTIONS • evidence cannot be inferred. -- Evidence is a real thing, not an educated guess. Evidence consists of things such as facts, documents, objects, and information. -- we cannot infer something that already exists -- in fact, we infer something FROM the evidence • blamed? -- suppose that blamed refers to 65 million years ago or perhaps to Earth some 65 million years ago . Ridiculous. Neither Earth nor a time in the past is to blame for the extinction of the dinosaurs. • blamed, part 2 -- I suspect that blamed can modify the subject of the preceding clause, but until I find an official question to back me up, I cannot be sure. -- suppose that blamed refers to evidence. Nonsense! Evidence did not cause the extinction and thus cannot be blamed for it. Eliminate A • This sentence makes sense. • The collision (of a meteorite with the Earth a long time ago) has been inferred from the discovery of iridium. (Remove the modifier set off by commas, "an event...") -- Logical. We may not know what iridium is. But if two celestial bodies crash, the surfaces of both are almost certainly affected. Iridium is not normally found in an even layer; is not normally found in the earth's crust; or is not normally found at all on Earth (the iridium came from the meteor). -- We can infer a crash (collision) between earth and a meteorite from the unusual presence of iridium. • blamed? Modifies event. __ED modifiers that are not preceded by a comma modify the immediately preceding noun. -- An event refers to the collision (between meteorite and Earth) -- Could the event/collision be blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs? Logically, yes. Suppose we knew nothing about this theory. At the least we can say that a collision = big change = possible to blame the collision for dinosaur extinction KEEP B. Because the answer is good, if need be, compare the other options to B! • blamed? evidence cannot be blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs. Evidence is information. • has been inferred? okay. The event (the collision) has been inferred from the unusual presence of iridium. • Option C is not a comma splice or run-on. (Option C does not impermissibly "stick" two independent clauses together with nothing more than a comma. -- An event that is a noun that restates the event mentioned just before the comma: a giant meteorite collided with the Earth. -- when we have a clause without a noun and we need a noun, we can use a few words to encapsulate what the clause means. -- those few words in this case are a "summative modifier"—a word or group of words that summarizes the preceding clause. -- whatever you want to call it, an event is a noun modifier (an appositive) that modifies colliision Eliminate C • has been inferred? No. The meteor itself was not inferred. The collision between meteor and Earth was inferred from the unusual presence of iridium. -- we know that the intended meaning is probably the collision has been inferred because of the other options and especially because of (B). -- I think that we can also reject this option's logic in isolation: we cannot infer a celestial body itself. (How do you "guess" a meteorite?) We can infer the presence of a celestial body. • whose both can and must be used for things and people. -- whose is the possessive form of both who (people) and which (things) -- whose is the only word available. See this article, here. -- I think that some of you got confused with the possessive pronoun its.

No worries. This is the place to work through the issues. -- see further analysis below Eliminate D • Above all: this sentence is not as good as B • That there was a collision of a giant meteorite with the Earth some 65 million years ago is the subject of the sentence. No kidding. -- That whole clause is called a noun clause (or nominal or substantive clause). -- Although the noun clause has a subject and a verb, the clause is a noun and can do anything a "regular" noun can do. More on this structure below. • whether this sentence is grammatical depends on how we interpret blamed, but even if the sentence is grammatical, (E) is not as good as (B). -- some of you noted that "an event" would make this answer grammatical. You are correct. Well done. An event would refer to the collision, and the collision is what gets blamed for extinction. -- we don't have "an event." Let's try both cases. • Case #1: the sentence is grammatical because blamed modifies collision -- in that case the sentence is grammatical because the subject, collision , and the verb, has been inferred , are not interrupted by a nonsensical modifier -- Noun clauses beginning with THAT mean The fact that -- the sentence is also logical : The fact that there was a collision between a meteorite and the Earth . . . has been inferred from the unusual presence of iridium. Case 1 conclusion: Option E is both grammatical and logical, but not as good an answer as B. Eliminate E. Option E is not as clear, concise, or easy to understand as B. -- "That there was" are unnecessary words. -- there was (in which there is kind of a "dummy" placeholder) is uncommon on the GMAT in this kind of situation. ("There was" is fairly uncommon anyway.) -- do not dismiss noun clauses automatically, though. Correct official answers use them. Case #2: Option E is not grammatical because blamed modifies years or Earth Although the subject (That there was a collision...) and the verb (has been inferred) are still correctly paired, we cannot just dismiss an erroneous or misplaced modifier. The collision was blamed, not years and not the Earth. Case 2, conclusion: Option E is fairly logical but a modifier error makes it ungrammatical. Eliminate E. -- what is blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs? This fact: "a giant meteorite collided with the Earth." -- stated differently, a collision (noun taken from collided) between a meteorite and the Earth is blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs Eliminate E The answer is B • Issues • comma + __ ED = blamed = past participle -- past participles (verbED words) without a comma always modify the immediately preceding noun -- what can modify? Mike McGarry, Magoosh -- usually modifies a nearby noun, can modify a faraway noun. Depends on context: the ability of a past participle verb to modify a distant noun depends on context. See this blog comment attached to the article Participle Phrases on the GMAT , here Ron Purewal, formerly of Manhattan Prep: can modify both the preceding noun and the subject of the previous clause, here Vertias Prep: can modify a far away noun, but GMAC is not "keen" on that situation, so "avoid it." HERE egmat: only the preceding noun or preceding main noun in a noun phrase: HERE. (based on an official explanation from OG 12) My position is similar to those of the first three sources listed. In this question, we do not have to address blamed to eliminate the four incorrect answers. • WHOSE -- is the possessive form of who and which -- is used for both people and things because it's the only word available -- is confusing because it contains the word who but not the word which -- should not be confused with who's, which means who is true: who's = who is = only for people true: the thing that upsets me = that is used only for things, never for people true: the person who upsets me = who is used only for people, never for things true: the person whose behavior upsets me = the person who is behaving in a way that upsets me true: the task whose demands are unreasonable = the task includes (has) demands that are unreasonable • Noun clauses - for more on noun (substantive, nominal) clauses, see Substantive Clauses on the GMAT, here . COMMENTS Shishou and joohwangie , welcome to SC Butler. I am really impressed by nearly all of these answers. I see incisive analysis—people are thinking about grammar, logic, and meaning. Boom. (Spot on.) Answers with explanations get kudos. Very nicely done.

zhanbo · Answer

Thanks for the great question. I have to choose between B and E. while I ended up choosing answer  (B) , I stand corrected if (E) is the right one.

(A) It is not logical to blame the extinction on the evidence.
(B) It is the event that was responsible for the extinction. This option sounds good to me.
(C) Again, why blame the extinction on evidence?
(D) To infer "a giant meteorite" does not make sense.
(E) This option also sounds OK to me. I think it is equivalent with "The event that there was a collision of a giant meteorite with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs, has been inferred from the discovery of a thin layer of crustal deposits rich in iridium." So it is essential the same as B. Well, maybe B is lightly more concise.

devangpandey007 · Answer

My answer is B.

A - Evidence being blamed for extinction? It should be the event itself that caused the extinction and not the evidence of that event.
B - Seems okay
C - Hitting of the meteorite is an evidence? It should be the discovery of iridium that is the evidence of the event.
D - Meteorite being inferred? It should be the event that needs to be inferred.
E - Seems right grammatically but is wordy. If I am not missing any errors in B, then out of B and E, B is my choice.

Raxit85 · Answer

Imo. B.

Abstract noun (implied noun) construction is preferred by GMAC.

Evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs, has been inferred from the discovery of a thin layer of crustal deposits rich in iridium.

A)  Evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction  of the dinosaurs, - Evidence..., blamed for ..., distorts the meaning.

B) The collision of a giant meteorite with the Earth some 65 million years ago, an event blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs, - an event, (noun modifier) refers to the collision of a giant meterorite, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs has been inferred .... Correct.

C)  The extinction of the dinosaurs has been blamed on evidence that a giant meteorite  collided with the Earth some 65 years ago, an event that - The extinction ....has been blamed on, meaning error.

D)  A giant meteorite, whose collision with the Earth some 65 million years ago is blamed  for the extinction of the dinosaurs, - Comma is required before 'is'

E)  That there was a collision of a giant meteorite with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for  the extinction of the dinosaurs, - Passive form is less preferred though it's not hard and fast rule in GMAT. What is the subject for the has been inferred??

LalitaSiri · Answer

Evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs, has been inferred from the discovery of a thin layer of crustal deposits rich in iridium.

A) Evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs, - if we omit the sentence after comma, we'll get "evidence that a giant meteorite collided... has been inferred from the discovery of a thin layer of crustal deposits rich in iridium". However, the modifier "blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs" does not make sense to modify evidence.. - so incorrect

B) The collision of a giant meteorite with the Earth some 65 million years ago, an event blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs, - The collision of a giant meteorite .. has been inferred from the discovery of a thin layer. OK 
An event blamed for the extinction refers to the collision - OK. Correct answer choice

C) The extinction of the dinosaurs has been blamed on evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 years ago, an event that - run on sentence

D) A giant meteorite, whose collision with the Earth some 65 million years ago is blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs, - whose only use with person in GMAT - incorrect

E) That there was a collision of a giant meteorite with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs, - That in the beginning of the sentence is awkward

Therefore B is the correct answer choice

Ajiteshmathur · Answer

Evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs,   has been inferred from the discovery of a thin layer of crustal deposits rich in iridium.

A) Evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 million years ago , blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs,

-->  First, there is a meaning error. The sentence says that the "Evidence....has been inferred". That does not make sense. The evidence is never inferred. Yes, events may be inferred on the basis of the evidence, but not the evidence itself. Also, there is a modifier error "..,blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs," is trying to describe maybe 65 million years ago. In any case the placement of the modifier is wrong and we can easily eliminate this one.

B) The collision of a giant meteorite with the Earth some 65 million years ago, an event blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs,

The modifier ",an event blamed....the dinosaurs," now makes more sense. The word "an event" refers to the preceding clause, thus the modifier is describing the event in the preceding clause. Also, the meaning is much clear as a whole in the sentence. The subject is now "The collision" and the sentence is now "The collision.... has been inferred from the discovery of a thin layer.....". This makes more sense. Overall the sentence is clear in meaning. Let's keep this one.

C) The extinction of the dinosaurs has been blamed on evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 years ago, an event that

I start reading the sentence and my work is cut short by the first few words "The extinction of the dinosaurs has been blamed on evidence that a...." . Extinction cannot be blamed on evidence. Doesn't make sense. The sentence further, making no sense, states that the "The extinction..... an event that has been inferred". Not worth it. Eliminate it.

D) A giant meteorite, whose collision with the Earth some 65 million years ago is blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs,

Again reading for meaning this sentence infers "A giant meteorite...has been inferred". Meteorite cannot be inferred. Easy to eliminate this one.

E) That there was a collision of a giant meteorite with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs,

Ah well this one is tricky. The modifier "blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs" seems to refer to the previous clause. But raises a bit of confusion. Also, the subject is not clear to me. The sentence as a whole makes sense, but in my opinion B is more succinct.

For me the Option B is the answer.

But, honestly, I am intrigued by the option E and I am eager to find out the actual errors, if any.

Shishou · Answer

Evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs, has been inferred from the discovery of a thin layer of crustal deposits rich in iridium.

A) Evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs, This incorrectly says evidence is to blame for the extinction of dinosaurs when it should be a collision

B) The collision of a giant meteorite with the Earth some 65 million years ago, an event blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs, I think this is fine. It states that the collision is to blame for the extinction and that the collision was or its occurrence was inferred from layers of crucial deposits.It is like saying that we observed something in the layers of iridium deposits and we can draw a conclusion that a collision wiped out the dinosaurs

C) The extinction of the dinosaurs has been blamed on evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 years ago, an event that The extinction of dinosaurs can not be blamed on evidence

D) A giant meteorite, whose collision with the Earth some 65 million years ago is blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs, how can a giant meteorite be inferred

E) That there was a collision of a giant meteorite with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs, E is similar to B in meaning but B puts the point through much better than E does.

joohwangie · Answer

Evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs, has been inferred from the discovery of a thin layer of crustal deposits rich in iridium.

A) Evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs,

evidence that a giant meteorite blamed for the extinction.. evidence is not blamed for extinction, the meteorite should be blamed

B) The collision of a giant meteorite with the Earth some 65 million years ago, an event blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs,

the collision has been inferred... correct

C) The extinction of the dinosaurs has been blamed on evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 years ago, an event that

run-on, no connector
 
D) A giant meteorite, whose collision with the Earth some 65 million years ago is blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs,

whose can't be used with a noun that isn't a person

E) That there was a collision of a giant meteorite with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs,

that there was a collision.. has been inferred is awkward

Therefore, B

ccheryn · Answer

Evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs, has been inferred from the discovery of a thin layer of crustal deposits rich in iridium.

A) Evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs  ( event has been inferred illogical. hence wrong)
 
B) The collision of a giant meteorite with the Earth some 65 million years ago, an event blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs, ( crisp and clear with collision of something has been inferred, plus noun (event) plus verb ed modifier(blamed) clarifies the noun to be modified . correct choice)

C) The extinction of the dinosaurs has been blamed on evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 years ago, an event that  ( event that has been inferred also seems illogical. hence wrong)

D) A giant meteorite, whose collision with the Earth some 65 million years ago is blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs,  (giant meteorite has been inferred . wrong intended meaning . hence wrong)

E) That there was a collision of a giant meteorite with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs,   (blamed is modifing the 65 million years and that there was a................. big clause acting as subject for has been and intended meaning is conveyed in this i think. so no sv error but wordy. hence wrong)

exc4libur · Answer

MEANING
what has been inferred from a discovery? the collision of a meteor.
what is blamed for the extinction? an event; generally, a past participle mod must mod the preceding noun/n-phrase.

A) "evidence… has been inferred" unintended; "evidence… blamed" unclear what is being modified;
C) "the extinction… has been inferred" unintended;
D) "a meteor… has been inferred" unintended; "whose collision…" introduces a non-essential mod, unintended;
E) "that there was…blamed" what is being blamed, its unclear;

Answer (B)

J2S2019 · Answer

IMO the correct answer is B

Evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs,  has been inferred from the discovery of a thin layer of crustal deposits rich in iridium.

A) Evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs, -  Changed meaning ",blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs," is incorrectly modifying the subject "Evidence  that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 million years ago " - It is the collision that to be blamed - INCORRECT

B) The collision of a giant meteorite with the Earth some 65 million years ago, an event blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs,  - ", an event blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs," correctlt modifying "The collision  of a giant meteorite with the Earth some 65 million years ago " - SVA is maintained by the non undelined portion verb "has" - CORRECT
 
C) The extinction of the dinosaurs has been blamed on evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 years ago, an event that -  Incorrect modification & changed meaning as well; "The extinction of the dinosaurs  has been blamed  on evidence  that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 years ago - "an event...." that refers back to " The extinction...." but this is not what has been inferred........, the collision is what has been inferred... INCORRECT.

D) A giant meteorite,  whose  collision with the Earth some 65 million years ago is blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs, -

A giant meteorite ,whose collision with the Earth some 65 million years ago is blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs,  has been inferred from the discovery of a thin layer of crustal deposits rich in iridium. -  Not making sense; "whose" - a possesive pronoun only can refer back to a person, not a thing - Incorrect

E) That there was a collision of a giant meteorite with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs-   though not able to find any apparent error, but B stands better that E - Incorrect

eakabuah · Answer

A) Evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 million years ago,  blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs , has been inferred from the discovery of a thin layer of crustal deposits rich in iridium. ----modifier error. 65 years ago blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs? That doesn't make sense. At best we can say it modifies the noun phrase  the earth some 65 million years ago .  the Earth some 65 million years ago blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs  still doesn't make sense. Therefore I eliminate A.

In option C:  The extinction of the dinosaurs has been blamed on evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 years ago ,  an event that has been inferred from the discovery of a thin layer of crustal deposits rich in iridium.  Two main clauses are separated by a comma. That is not correct. So C can be eliminated.

Option D: A giant meteorite, whose collision with the Earth some 65 million years ago is blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs, an event that has been inferred from the discovery of a thin layer of crustal deposits rich in iridium. When you take out the non-essential modifier, you get:  A giant meteorite an event that has been inferred from the discovery of a thin layer of crustal deposits rich in iridium . A meteorite cannot be an event. Hence D can also be eliminated.

Option E: That there was a collision of a giant meteorite with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs, has been inferred from the discovery of a thin layer of crustal deposits rich in iridium. The verb-ed modifier  blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs  either modifies  65 million years ago  or  a collision of a giant meteorite with the Earth some 65 million years ago . The later makes sense. Also, the noun clause  That there was a collision of a giant meteorite with the Earth some 65 million years ago  is the subject of the verb  has been inferred . There is no SV error. Keep E.

Option B: The collision of a giant meteorite with the Earth some 65 million years ago, an event blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs, has been inferred from the discovery of a thin layer of crustal deposits rich in iridium. There is no ambiguity in the modification by the restating of  an event  which rightly modifies  collision of a giant meteorite with the Earth some 65 million years ago . The subject for the verb  has been inferred  is  collision .

Between B and E, B is clearer. B doesn't have modification ambiguity by properly restating the modified noun phrase as an event. Last but not the least, the subject collision for the verb  has been inferred  makes more sense compared with the noun clause subject in option E.  So I choose B  over E.

Same Good Kid · Answer

selected B. Seems logical and Ok.

mykrasovski · Answer

Evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs, has been inferred from the discovery of a thin layer of crustal deposits rich in iridium.

A) Evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs,

--> First, there is a meaning error. The sentence says that the "Evidence....has been inferred". That does not make sense. The evidence is never inferred. Yes, events may be inferred on the basis of the evidence, but not the evidence itself. Also, there is a modifier error "..,blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs," is trying to describe maybe 65 million years ago. In any case the placement of the modifier is wrong and we can easily eliminate this one.

B) The collision of a giant meteorite with the Earth some 65 million years ago, an event blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs,

The modifier ",an event blamed....the dinosaurs," now makes more sense. The word "an event" refers to the preceding clause, thus the modifier is describing the event in the preceding clause. Also, the meaning is much clear as a whole in the sentence. The subject is now "The collision" and the sentence is now "The collision.... has been inferred from the discovery of a thin layer.....". This makes more sense. Overall the sentence is clear in meaning. Let's keep this one.

C) The extinction of the dinosaurs has been blamed on evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 years ago, an event that

I start reading the sentence and my work is cut short by the first few words "The extinction of the dinosaurs has been blamed on evidence that a...." . Extinction cannot be blamed on evidence. Doesn't make sense. The sentence further, making no sense, states that the "The extinction..... an event that has been inferred". Not worth it. Eliminate it.

D) A giant meteorite, whose collision with the Earth some 65 million years ago is blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs,

Again reading for meaning this sentence infers "A giant meteorite...has been inferred". Meteorite cannot be inferred. Easy to eliminate this one.

E) That there was a collision of a giant meteorite with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs,

Ah well this one is tricky. The modifier "blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs" seems to refer to the previous clause. But raises a bit of confusion. Also, the subject is not clear to me. The sentence as a whole makes sense, but in my opinion B is more succinct.

For me the Option B is the answer.

But, honestly, I am intrigued by the option E and I am eager to find out the actual errors, if any.

snoep · Answer

Evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs, has been inferred from the discovery of a thin layer of crustal deposits rich in iridium.

So there is an evidence...then something is blamed and then something is inferred from , this type of sentence can be resolved by logic

A)  Evidence  that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 million years ago,  blamed for  the extinction of the dinosaurs,
this option suggests Evidence is blamed for, hence not correct

B)  The collision  of a giant meteorite with the Earth some 65 million years ago,  an event blamed  for the extinction of the dinosaurs,
Collision has been inferred from the discovery of the thin layer and this collision, an event is blamed for extinction -> fits well with intended meaning

C)  The extinction  of the dinosaurs  has been blamed  on evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 years ago, an event that
the extinction has been blamed  on evidence  doesn't make sense
the extinction has been inferred from the discovery of thin layer -> doesn't make sense

D) A  giant meteorite , whose collision with the Earth some 65 million years ago  is blamed  for the extinction of the dinosaurs,
whose is a possessive noun and it indicates here that giant meteorite's collision as if collision is a part of giant meteorite - which doesn't make sense
giant meteorite has been inferred from the thin layers -> it is not clear when we say meteorite is inferred from .... 
this option also suggest that meteorite is blamed for extinction rather its the collision

E)  That there  was a collision of a giant meteorite with the Earth some 65 million years ago, blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs, 
that there was a collision has been inferred...or rephrase,  a fact  that there was a collision  has been inferred  , fact is not inferred...

B is the closest better answer!

generis · Answer

I have posted the official explanation  HERE

TheNightKing · Answer

I am late to the party. Sorry! Notice the non underline portion which nicely says "has been inferred". C and D are straight out because they cannot be inferred. Let's see the other 3 choices I guess you can solve this one without almost any grammar knowledge. generis I hope you're doing good.

I had a busy week at work and will be working over weekend too. I will try to keep up!! Thank you!

GKomoku · Answer

@generis each of your explanations is a masterpiece! thank you!

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

Evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 millio

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

Evidence that a giant meteorite collided with the Earth some 65 millio

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards