Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor bikes fro

Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor bikes from the tranquil waters of Puget Sound, a judge overturned the ban on the ground of violating state laws for allowing the use of personal watercraft on common waterways.


(A) of violating state laws for allowing

(B) of their violating state laws to allow

(C) that it violates state laws that allowed

(D) that it violated state laws allowing

(E) that state laws were being violated allowing

blue colour is core of the sentence
If you notice difference between A and D , it says:
A says: overturned the ban xxxx for allowing --> one ambigious meaning .here prepsoition description can be connected with verb . overturned the ban for allowing? because of ambigiouity and we have D.
D says: overturned the ban xx state laws <modifier> ; since there is no preposition the modifier is pointing to state laws

GMATNinja Please help us with this question

The ban was violated. It can't be in the present or continuous since it is already overturned. This eliminates A, B & C.

E is eliminated as the construction is awkward. Also, due to preference of active voice over passive voice,

D is the answer.

Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor bikes from the tranquil waters of Puget Sound, a judge overturned the ban on the ground of violating state laws for allowing the use of personal watercraft on common waterways.

Option Elimination -

(A) of violating state laws for allowing -

A bit of basics first. On GMAT, "grounds for" (not on the grounds for), "on the grounds of," (not on the ground of), and "on the grounds that" are preferred.
"Grounds for" indicates the reason or basis for a particular decision. "grounds for" is more focused on the reason itself. It is typically followed by a noun or a noun phrase. Example: There are grounds for believing the company's profits will increase next quarter,
"on the grounds of" is used to introduce the reason. It is also followed by a noun or a noun phrase. Example: The proposal was rejected on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
"on the grounds that" introduces the subordinate clause explaining the grounds or basis mentioned. Example: The decision was made on the grounds that the project was not financially viable.

Back to our option A. The challenges here are
1. Using the present participle "violating" gives a sense that it's a continuous action against the intended meaning, which is that this happened in the past.
2. "for allowing" is wrong here. "for" is typically used to show the reason or the purpose. Let's look at our sentence - a judge overturned the ban on the grounds of violating state laws "for allowing" the use of personal watercraft on common waterways. ok, so let's evaluate this: "A judge overturned the ban on the ground of violating state laws "with the purpose of allowing" the use of personal watercraft on common waterways." The problem with the meaning of "for allowing" is that now, instead of modifying the "state laws," it becomes adverbial and modifies the main verb "overturned," meaning that "the judge overturned the ban with the purpose of allowing the use of personal watercraft on common waterways," a ridiculous meaning and not the intended meaning. Yes, I agree that in our sentence, we have "for allowing" and not "with the purpose of," but the meaning of "for allowing" is something that doesn't work here. That's why this option is entirely wrong.

Moreover, I am unsure if someone pasted it wrong, but "on the ground (without S) doesn't seem correct.

(B) of their violating state laws to allow - "their" no antecedent.

(C) that it violates state laws that allowed - "violates" is present is not right as this happened in the past. And "allowed" in the past tense is incorrect as those laws still apply

(D) that it violated state laws allowing - ok

(E) that state laws were being violated allowing - one why to convert to passive for no reason. Moreover, what noun is this phrase modifying? " allowing the use of personal watercraft on common waterways"? Nothing? Which is wrong.