When we look at the star Alpha Centauri, we see it as it was a little

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION



THE PROMPT

• Meaning?
What is happening in this sentence?

First clause:
→ When we look at the star Alpha Centauri
Note the present tense.

Second clause, underlined:
Glance at the options.
They all suggest that right now, when we look at the star Alpha Centauri, we do not see the star as it actually appears in the present.

Why do we not see the star as it appears today?

Third phrase:
→ for it took the light that long [= four years] to get here.
The word for can mean because or since.
Even if you do not know this definition, you can glean the definition from context.

THE OPTIONS


• I see no issues

• we see creates a nice parallel with the first part of the sentence, i.e., [when] we look

• the simple past tense verb was is appropriate.
→ I remember him from the metaphysics class we took a decade ago in which he was a bit contrarian.
→ Whenever he looks at the photograph of his enormous dog, Molly, he shakes his head at the image from five years ago, for she was tiny enough to fit in his palm.

KEEP (It's okay not to be sure, but do keep the option, because it is grammatical and logical. The style of another option may be superior.)


• no reason exists to use past perfect because doing so warps the logic
→ We are not really dealing with two events in which one event occurs and is completed before the other event occurs.

That is, we use past perfect to depict the earlier of two events in the past
→ past perfect is often referred to as "the past of the past."
→ to use past perfect, we need at least one event written in simple past tense or time stamped, but we must also watch the logic.

We do not have a sequence of events that might necessitate the use of past perfect.

We are not witnessing the star as it "had been" before the light began to travel, continued its journey, and took four years to get here.
We are witnessing the star as it was four years ago because as a matter of general fact, the light takes four years to get here.
That light shows us the way Alpha Centuari looked [was] four years ago.
The arrival of the light and the perception of the image are simultaneous.

We do have one event rendered in simple past: it took the light four years to get here.
But had been implies that when the light arrived here after four years, the appearance of the star had changed before that light's travel and/or arrival.

Logically, no: the two past events are simultaneous, and both should be written in simple past tense.
We see the star as it appeared, as it was, four years ago because the light traveled for four years.

Past perfect is used to talk about something that happened before something else.
Past perfect implies this timeline:

PAST →→|star's appearance changed|→→|light took four years to get here|→→NOW

The call between option A and option B is a close one.
GMAC typically prefers simple past (and simple future) as long as sequence is clear.
In option A, sequence is clear.
In option B, the use of had been is a bit strained, logically.
ELIMINATE B


• no reason exists to use a hypothetical
We are not looking at a hypothetical star.
Nor are we looking at a star's hypothetical appearance.
The star is real. Its appearance is real.

Because light takes time to travel, what we see and what the star looks like right now are not identical.
But as if suggests a situation that is contrary to fact.

• if it was should be if it were
if we use a Type 2 conditional (a hypothetical condition and its probable result), a to be verb is written in the subjunctive
→ Correct: The harvest moon hung low in the night sky as if it were suspended lower than usual by invisible but sturdy braces.
ELIMINATE C


• do not use the word in to describe specific past tense time periods
→ Correct: She moved to Provence a little over four years ago.
→ Wrong: She moved to Provence IN a little over four years ago.
We can use the word in with specific time periods that are in the near-future or future.
→ Correct: She will finish her exams in a little over four weeks.

• Option D's verb voice does not stay parallel; almost always, we should not switch from active to passive voice in the same sentence.

In the non-underlined portion of D, the verb is in active voice: we look.
In the second part, the verb switches to passive voice: it appears to us.
→ The active voice is evident in options A, B, and C: we see
→ If the first part were in passive voice, it would be written, "When the star Alpha Centauri is looked at by us . . . " (Wow is that construction horrible.)

GMAC does not like mid-sentence switches from active to passive voice.

→ option A keeps the clauses parallel and uses active voice in both: we look ↔ we see
By contrast, in option D we have: we look . . . it appears to us
Option A is better than option D.
ELIMINATE D


• no need for a hypothetical as though
→ as if (in option C) and as though mean the same thing. Both depict hypothetical situations.
We do not need a hypothetical stiuation.

• as in option D, the verb switches unnecessarily from active to passive in mid-sentence (that switch is almost always incorrect on the GMAT)

• also as is the case in option D, option E lacks the parallel harmony created by we look . . . we see

• this sentence is a fragment
→ as though requires a clause to follow (as though it were, as though I might)
→ a subject and verb are missing
ELIMINATE E

The answer is A.

NOTES

This question is really hard.

GMAC tends to prefer simple past (and simple future).
If sequence is clear and you must pick between simple past and past perfect, choose simple past.
(I think I've seen only two official questions in which no other error distinguished the two answers.)

We do have a takeaway: if you are forced to choose between simple past in which sequence is clear and past perfect:
(1) look for another decision point, including
(2) the logic of the verbs, and if you are at an impasse,
(3) choose simple past

Finally, option A does not determine intended meaning.
We must figure out the intended meaning by examining context.
Option A just happened, this time, to contain the intended meaning.
There is nothing sacred about option A.

COMMENTS

randomavoidplease (great username), welcome to SC Butler.

Abhi077 , my comrade in arms, thanks for the help. +1

I am impressed with the reasoning in these answers, even if, at times, the reasoning totters just a little bit. Or not.
Either way, the analysis is good.
If I could give two kudos to those of you who were brave and posted, I would do so.

As always, aspirants have a standing invitation to post.
Be brave. Brave is good.

Nicely done.