Observing an apple fall from a tree, Newton came up with the assertion

If you find the OA unconvincing, MPRS22, you have good reason: the answer cannot be (C) as it appears above. My take on the answer choices:


As a general rule, I do not like to eliminate answers based on idioms unless I know the idiom is off. Could Newton have come up with an assertion for a force? It kind of sounds as though he made the assertion on behalf of the force, and that interpretation would, of course, be ridiculous. We have nothing else to conjure up to justify for, though. That is, I could make an assertion for (on behalf of) someone else, as strange as that may sound, but I could not make an assertion for an idea.

What I like about this answer choice is that the opening phrase clearly modifies Newton, and the main clause flows seamlessly: Newton + [verb] + [object]. In my first pass of the answer choices, I would leave this one alone.


This is an easy elimination. Nothing made Newton come up with an assertion. Rather, Newton thought of an idea upon observing nature. There is no need to turn the observing phrase into a gerund and follow it up with this sloppy clause construct in what made... I will save that for my discussion of (C) below. This one should already be out of the running.


To be clear, an assertion that something is perfectly idiomatic. The problem, however, lies in the grammatical quagmire we find ourselves stuck in as soon as we hit the semicolon.

Newton came up with the assertion that a force in the earth that attracted objects towards it

The line above is NOT an independent clause. There are two ways to make it one:

1) Place some additional information either before or after a force:

• BEFORE the noun—there was a force
• there existed a force

• AFTER the noun—a force existed
• a force was present

2) Remove the second that to allow attracted to act as a verb within the subordinated clause:

Newton came up with the assertion that a force in the earth that attracted objects towards it

In the absence of one of these alterations, choice (C) must be incorrect. I would eliminate it.


The placement of the phrase as an interrupter of the main clause is grammatically acceptable, albeit less preferred than what we saw in the original sentence. It is simply easier to follow a modifying phrase followed by a main clause than it is to start the main clause, put that thought on hold for a moment to deliver additional information, and then pop back into the sentence. Apart from that peccadillo, though, there is nothing to argue against here: the assertion of something works idiomatically, and, most importantly, we get an independent clause ahead of the semicolon. Essentially, Newton came up with an assertion of a force that did something. Yes, that sentence checks out. Put this one on hold and look for an easier elimination if you can find it.


Now this is more like it. Fall down is commonly heard, but in the sentence, down is not necessary to convey the image of what Newton saw. The same can be said of was able to. It is not exactly incorrect, but there is nothing wrong with the earlier, more direct iterations that use the simple past (i.e. came) instead. Finally, that at the end of the underlined portion is flat-out wrong, as discussed above.

After the first cut, between (A) and (D), the latter is the safer option. Rather than chase an answer that may sound better in (A), we should look to get behind the one that is harder to argue against. The idiom assertion for is incorrect in (A), while (D) has a slightly awkward placement of a phrase in the beginning, but not one that is wrong. For this reason, the best answer is (D).

I have noticed a few irregularities with Aristotle questions. Solver beware. (And, as much as possible, stick to official questions for Verbal.)

- Andrew