I think C is the key.
Both A and B are wrong in an obvious way. A is wrong because "as" should
lead a sentence. B is wrong because we can't find what is being compared
with "nuclear reactors".
Both D and E are awkward. "Nuclear fusion is the force that powers...,
and merges... " is not a well balanced structure. the main clause,
compared with the relative, is really short.
OG also say they are illogical. Fusion(a) and force(b) are two
observable facts. Suppose "and merges..." paralell to "is...". Then we
have fusion merges nuclei, which is illogical because merger of nuclei(c)
and nuclear fusion (a)are the same thing. Then what if "and merges..."
paralell to "powers..."? Then we have "a is b that powers..., and c." In
fact,C is illogical, as well.
In fact, the clear expression should be "Unlike those nuclear reators
splitting the nuclei of atoms apart, the stars such as the Sun merge
them, which give off light and heat." Only if we know what is nuclear
fusion and its operation, we know whether an expression used to represent
it is logical. In fact, "nuclear reactors splitting the nuclei" is not
exact, either, because they provide only the conditions in which nuclear
fission happens. The modern physics focuses on the observation of
physical phenomena, and uses statistics and probability to describe the
phenomena observed. Instead, it is unwilling to infer causal link between
two or many simultanious phenomena.
Perhaps it is just our language heritage which, compared with the rapid
progress in science and technology, is a bit outdated. |