Cynics charge that Major League Baseball lobbied for

C is wrong because it changes the meaning of the text. C means to imply that the MLB lobbied for stadiums that had (already possessed) fewer seats, while the text implies that MLB lobbied for new stadiums to be built with fewer seats. Why would a body lobby for something already existing? So C is wrong for twisting the original intent.
_________________

C, D and E are incorrect because of past perfect tense "had". "had" is used to sequence of 2 events in past.
Between A and B the difference is of "fewer" and "less". Since we can count number of seats, A sounds correct.

IMO A

B,D and E are soon ruled out.( because of LESS rather than FEWER )

between A and C, I go for A.

It should be "fewer seats", so B, D, and E are out. C is wrong because of the past perfect form "had been built". A.

Straight A.

C,D,E - 'Had' is used incorrectl
B - 'Less' is incorrect usage as Seats are a countable quantity

seats = countable. fewer > less
Only A and C left.

C : second "that" is nonsensical construction. There are two "that" in the same sentence - hence suspect.

A remains. Btw what is the source?

fine, (fewer > less) that narrows down the choices. if 'that' is repeated twice should we eliminate C because of awkward construction ?

100% elimination.
2 that
2 which
2 it
2 them --------- suspect but do not eliminate
2 they --------- suspect but do not eliminate
2 their --------- suspect but do not eliminate

But 2 that -----------> ANNIHILATE !

IMO C is wrong because it uses past perfect tense in the second clause as if stadium increased seats later on.

Thus, A is correct.

+1 A

Seats: countable noun. It requires "fewer".
"THAT HAD": Wrong tense. The original sentence doesn't mention that the studiums don't have fewer stadiums in the present.

'A' seem to be logical choice. But, doesn't A also would give a misleading meaning - lobbied for stadiums with fewer seats can mean that lobbied with fewer seats - which does not make sense.

A
"with fewer seats " acting a Modifier for Stadium
with fewer seats - prepositional phrase can act like a Adjective !

So lobbied for stadiums (with fewer seats )...

Seats is countable noun...so fewer is the correct word. So we are left with A and c.
C past perfect wrong
A is correct one

First check the speech of the sentence, it is in indirect speech. Authors is stating what Cynics claim.

Charge is in present tense, thus we can restate what Cynics say in the same tense.. no need to use past perfect.

Second split is fever vs less. Seats are countable thus we must use fewer. Eliminate B,D and E.

Between A and C. I rejected C because of reason explained above. It is using past perfect, but in original sentence no such tense sequence is presented.

Cynics charge that Major League Baseball lobbied for stadiums with fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.

A. lobbied for stadiums with fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
B. lobbied for stadiums with less seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
C. lobbied for stadiums that had fewer seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
D. lobbied for stadiums that had less seats to reduce supply and increase ticket prices.
E. lobbied for stadiums that had less seats as a means of reducing supply so they could increase ticket prices.

seats is a countable noun so we prefer fewer over less
options B,D and E are out
In option C use of that and also use of past perfect makes it a incorrect choice
Statement is correct as it is stated
correct answer - A

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________