Recently, some astronomers spotted a gap in the extended outer atmosph

A. Sun, a discovery suggesting that a gigantic number of particles escaped

B. Sun, a discovery that suggested the escape of a gigantic amount of particles

C. Sun suggesting that a gigantic number of particles escaped

D. Sun that suggests a gigantic number of particles that escaped

E. Sun, a discovery suggesting a gigantic amount of particles escaping

any of then could be true

Recently, some astronomers spotted a gap in the extended outer atmosphere of the Sun,
a discovery suggesting that
a gigantic number of particles escaped into space as geomagnetic storms that
at times cause damage to the Earth’s satellites and power grids.


A. Sun, a discovery suggesting that a gigantic number of particles escaped
(Run on sentence.....there is no proper verb because of suggesting.)

B. Sun, a discovery that suggested the escape of a gigantic amount of particles

C. Sun suggesting that a gigantic number of particles escaped
suggesting modifies outer atmosphere of the Sun here impying as if atm is suggesting sth

D. Sun that suggests a gigantic number of particles that escaped
that is used wrongly here modifying outer atmosphere of the sun.

E. Sun, a discovery suggesting a gigantic amount of particles escaping
Same error as that of A.

Correct me if I am wrong anywhere.

IMHO sugar particles should become countable whereas sugar should remain uncountable noun. Happy to be corrected though.

Rgds.

Here is my answer. IMO the answer is

Recently, some astronomers spotted a gap in the extended outer atmosphere of the Sun, a discovery suggesting that a gigantic number of particles escaped into space as geomagnetic storms that at times cause damage to the Earth’s satellites and power grids.

A. Sun, a discovery suggesting that a gigantic number of particles escaped
- This makes the best sense//

B. Sun, a discovery that suggested the escape of a gigantic amount of particles
- keeping suggested which is in the past does not bear well with the rest of the phrase which is still at the present (cause)

C. Sun suggesting that a gigantic number of particles escaped
- modified issue

D. Sun that suggests a gigantic number of particles that escaped
- that used twice. incorrect

E. Sun, a discovery suggesting a gigantic amount of particles escaping
- escaping means its happening now and ongoing, but it does not sync with the happening 'at times'. So escaped would be the right usage.

[/quote]

One more good question from egmat. Modifiers at play here. Should not be much of a problem though [/quote]

Point 1.
An amount and physically plural words such as particles or grains or crystals can never be combined together.
We may say a good quantum or amount of sugar, but never, a good quantity of surge crystals. It has to be only a number of sugar crystals, because crystals are certainly countable
We can say a good quantity of milk but not a good quantity of milk sachets, because sachets are physically countable and plural.
So any choice that says the gigantic amount of particles is out of the reckoning

Point 2
C . Sun suggesting that a gigantic number of particles escaped
D. Sun that suggests a gigantic number of particles that escaped
In both the cases, suggesting and that suggests modify the word sun, which is logically wrong.

So, let's make merry with whatever we are left with?

Though befuddling a bit, this is yet another example that will capitulate before the stick of grammar.
-

Here the first part of the sentence briefs us about the discovery made by the astronomers. Therefore it should be followed by the word "discovery".
Hence eliminating C and D.
As per option B the verb is "suggested", in my view the discovery still persists. Hence it should bot be in past tense.
Eliminate option B.

Now we are left option A and E
The word "suggest" should be followed by "that".
Hence eliminating E

IMO the OA is option A


Give kudos if the above explanation helps you...!!

Money is uncountable , whereas particles are countable

@tinnie123, I do not think I would agree with you that Particles are countable...and especially in the context in which it is used in the sentence, but hey, I stand to be corrected..

Though I am late in answering this question, I will just say it was all about modifier and countable and non-countable things. It took 1min35sec.

Recently, some astronomers spotted a gap in the extended outer atmosphere of the Sun, a discovery suggesting that a gigantic number of particles escaped into space as geomagnetic storms that at times cause damage to the Earth’s satellites and power grids.

A. Sun, a discovery suggesting that a gigantic number of particles escaped

B. Sun, a discovery that suggested the escape of a gigantic amount of particles

C. Sun suggesting that a gigantic number of particles escaped

D. Sun that suggests a gigantic number of particles that escaped

E. Sun, a discovery suggesting a gigantic amount of particles escaping

Why A is not a run on error ?

Recently, some astronomers spotted a gap in the extended outer atmosphere of the Sun - Independent Clause

Although I agree A is the best ans & after elimination the only one but I was doubtful whether I am overlooking the run-on error . Kindly explain .

Freddie! Hi,


By definition, a run-on is a flaw of wrongful conjugation of two independent clauses by just a comma instead of the required period or semicolon or conjunction.

Here in choice A, while the first part is no doubt an IC, the second part ‘a discovery suggesting that a gigantic number of particles escaped’ is not an IC; it is just a modifier; hence A is not a run-on.

A it is. Modifier error & Appositives eliciting clear meaning.

Hi,

In the correct option A, the verb tense "escaped" doesn't sync properly with the verb tense of "cause" in the later part of the sentence. It suggests that "escape" happened once at a time, but the effect of one time event of "escape" is that it keeps on causing the storm.

A. Sun, a discovery suggesting that a gigantic number of particles escaped

Hi AndrewN, egmat : Could you please shed light on it?

Hello, abhishekmayank. You have to be careful when you look at a sentence not to project something such as parallelism onto it when the grammatical pieces may be different. How about we start by taking a look at the sentence?


Notice that within the modifying phrase—a discovery...—we have two separate embedded clauses, those that begin with that. You can tell that they are NOT parallel clauses because there is no and to link them together: that... and that... Thus, the sentence can tell us what the discovery suggested in the past tense—namely, that particles escaped—while at the same time offering commentary on geomagnetic storms in general in the present tense by employing a relative clause. It is understood that such storms can at times cause damage, not that these particular geomagnetic storms caused damage. To be honest, once I realized the latter clause was modifying storms, I ignored the rest of the sentence, knowing that it had no bearing on the underlined portion. A different sentence could, in fact, be written with caused in place of cause, though. It just depends on what the author means to convey.

I hope that helps clarify your concern. Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew

Hello abhishekmayank,

We hope this finds you well.

Having gone through the question and your query, we believe we can resolve your doubt.

The intended meaning here is that the particles escaped in the form of geomagnetic storms, in the past, and these storms now cause damage to the Earth’s satellites and power grids. In other words, the particles escaped in the past but cause habitually cause damage in the present. Remember, two tenses in a sentence will not maintain parallelism if the two actually refer to actions in different time periods.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team