Which option joins the sequence of events correctly without omitting detail?

• A. The power went out after a car crashed into the telephone pole; I later got the generator working.
• B. A car crashed into a telephone pole, causing the power to go out and me to get the generator working.
• C. I got the generator working after the power went out and a car crashed into the telephone pole.
• D. The power went out after I got the generator working; a car crashed into the telephone pole.

Answer: (A)

The sequence being tested is the order of events and how one thing leads to another. In this sentence, the car crashing into the telephone pole clearly triggers the power outage, as shown by the phrasing that the outage happens after the crash. Then the next part, “I later got the generator working,” explicitly places the generator activity after the outage, completing a logical, chronological progression: crash → outage → generator operation.

This makes the causal chain unmistakable. The other options lose that clarity: one option lumps the outcomes of the crash into a single effect without signaling which happened first, another places the generator work after both events but doesn’t clearly show the exact sequence, and the last option puts the generator working before the outage, which doesn’t fit the cause-and-effect order.