Since the start of space age, more and more littering

[RonPurewal]

well, it worked on the other thread.

really we just need verification, so i suppose the mini-picture is good enough.

[RonPurewal]

there is nothing wrong with saying 'there is x'. this construction is basically equivalent to 'x exists' (if x is a thing), or 'x happens' (if x is an event).

the problem, though, is that "the intentional discarding of lens caps, packing material , fuel tanks and payload covers" IS the "littering".
so, sentences D and E are not logical.
'because of' must be followed by SOMETHING ELSE that is actually the cause of something.
'with' should be followed by a component or part of the previous observation.

note that the correct answer is phrased in a way that removes this problem.
the correct answer says "orbits ... have become more and more littered". in this version, "littered" means roughly the same as 'dirty' or 'polluted'.

[CrystalSpringston]

there is nothing wrong with saying 'there is x'. this construction is basically equivalent to 'x exists' (if x is a thing), or 'x happens' (if x is an event).

the problem, though, is that "the intentional discarding of lens caps, packing material , fuel tanks and payload covers" IS the "littering".
so, sentences D and E are not logical.
'because of' must be followed by SOMETHING ELSE that is actually the cause of something.
'with' should be followed by a component or part of the previous observation.

note that the correct answer is phrased in a way that removes this problem.
the correct answer says "orbits ... have become more and more littered". in this version, "littered" means roughly the same as 'dirty' or 'polluted'.

Thanks Ron, It helps.
What about" where there be" constructions? Tons of questions treat it as redundency. Is that absolutely true?
Eg:

I love that restaurant where there are plenty of delicious cakes.

[RonPurewal]

there is nothing inherently wrong with such a construction.

Many entrepreneurs are leaving California for Texas, where there are fewer obstacles to setting up and running a small business.

[CrystalSpringston]

there is nothing inherently wrong with such a construction.

Many entrepreneurs are leaving California for Texas, where there are fewer obstacles to setting up and running a small business.

Thanks.
That means we cannot judge a sentence wrong only because it contains "there be" or "where there be".
There must be other splits we should figure them out.

[RonPurewal]

there is nothing inherently wrong with such a construction.

Many entrepreneurs are leaving California for Texas, where there are fewer obstacles to setting up and running a small business.

Thanks.
That means we cannot judge a sentence wrong only because it contains "there be" or "where there be".
There must be other splits we should figure them out.

yes.

[RonPurewal]

more generally, you will ALMOST NEVER be able to look at a single construction and say 'that's wrong'.

rather, you will ALMOST ALWAYS have to think about how constructions relate to each other.

in other words:

• 'thing X is wrong, because it's ... a thing that is wrong.'
this will VERY rarely happen.

• 'thing X is wrong, because it's supposed to have 'Y' relationship to thing Z... but it doesn't.'
this will USUALLY be the issue.

after all, this is the whole point of SC.
SC is not a test of whether you have memorized a million small details. rather, it is a test of whether you can SEE MAJOR RELATIONSHIPS.

[CrystalSpringston]

more generally, you will ALMOST NEVER be able to look at a single construction and say 'that's wrong'.

rather, you will ALMOST ALWAYS have to think about how constructions relate to each other.

in other words:

• 'thing X is wrong, because it's ... a thing that is wrong.'
this will VERY rarely happen.

• 'thing X is wrong, because it's supposed to have 'Y' relationship to thing Z... but it doesn't.'
this will USUALLY be the issue.

after all, this is the whole point of SC.
SC is not a test of whether you have memorized a million small details. rather, it is a test of whether you can SEE MAJOR RELATIONSHIPS.

Cannot agree more. I think that's why some people can solve each SC question so quickly.

[tim]

[RonPurewal]

Cannot agree more. I think that's why some people can solve each SC question so quickly.

that's probably true for some people. for others, though, it's the result of a cumulative intuition developed over a very long time.

with sufficient experience, readers can reach a point where they can discriminate between correctly and incorrectly written sentences purely by intuition. in other words, they can just 'see' when a sentence is correct or incorrect. conscious thinking is no longer required; any 'explanations' are purely in retrospect.
(in the same way, if you listen to people speaking your native language, you can just 'hear' who has a foreign accent and who doesn't. you don't have to think about this AT ALL—and, in most cases, you probably can't pinpoint exactly why you hear an accent. you just hear one.)

[ShriramC110]

Hi Ron,

Can we eliminate answer choice c , as"" because of ... Verb-ing " is wrong??

Thanks,

[RonPurewal]

no.

'because of __ing' is not idiomatic.

but, this is not 'because of __ing'.

this is 'because of THE __ing'.
in this construction, 'THE __ing' is a noun form, and its use with 'because of' is fine.

recall that some verbs have special, dedicated noun forms:
destroy --> the destruction
announce --> the announcement
steal --> the theft

others do not:
plan --> the planning
burn --> the burning
discard --> the discarding

so, for instance, both of these sentences are fine:

Because of the theft of several hundred thousand dollars' worth of gems from Tom's Jewelers last week, most local jewelers have begun to employ extra security precautions at their storefronts.

Because of the hijacking of Flight 55 last week, the nation's airports have instituted new security procedures that will inevitably create delays for travelers.

[RichaChampion]

Ron sir, I read the entire discussion in this thread posted by you. Can you Please also analyse Option E why is it wrong here?

[RonPurewal]

• the tense of "had been" makes no sense.
("since xxxx" is a period that runs up to the present, so, we need "has/have been")

• the modifier at the end of the answer choices is talking about the littering of orbits.
so, we need to keep the choice(s) in which this modifier is CLOSEST to "littering"/"littered", and eliminate the choices in which it is needlessly far away from "littering"/"littered".
in choice B, this modifier is DIRECTLY NEXT TO "littered".
in choice E, there's a gigantic distance between "littering" and the modifier.
so, eliminate E and keep B.