Two major flaws
about options A B D & E1 'there be' VS 'with(out)''there be' is pertaining to the confirmation of existence.
'with(out)' indicates the ownership.
#1 the cat will find it difficult to gorge the food without water.
#2 the cat will find it difficult to gorge the food if there is not water.
#2 suggests that there is no water at all.
#1 suggests that there might be some water, but the cat doesn't have it.
Another two examples:
#3 The 100 senators passed the bill without any objection.
#4 The 100 senators passed the bill, and there is no objection.
#3 means there is no objection from the any senator.
#4 means there is no objection at all, and all the citizens are glad with the bill.
Back to our question.
We need to know what the author wants to emphasise: there is not testimony at all, or the patient doesn't have the testimony? Apparently the latter one. so A B D are out
2 'to testify'This logic subject of the verb 'testify' is ambiguous.
Let's consider the following example
#5 The patient lacks the skill to dance.
In #5, the logic subject of the verb 'dance' is 'the patient'.
So there are two ways to understand the option A B & E:
1st there is few doctor who will testify
2nd there is few doctor for the patient to testify
or there is a few doctor whom the patient will testify
With the flaw 1, we eliminate A B & D
With the flaw 2, we eliminate A B & E.
Only C left.
C is structurely different
from other options.
We can consider 'without another doctor's ttestimony' as an adverbial modifying 'to prove damage' (like #1). And other options are all adverbials modifying the main sentence. A B D are adverbial clause indicate the condition, while E indicates an accompanied action.
I am a student from China, and working on SC now
Send me email if you want to discuss gmat SC with me
email: zhengkangcheng@126(.)com (remove the parentheses)