In a shock to those who still lived under the impression

D for me

A and B - Past tenses
C - "who still were living" and "will be aware" are not needed
E - was aware is not correct

D - reflects more current tense and something ongoing

Good question this!

My strategy -- since this was a long sentence..

1) 4-1 split on Investments ARE closely vs. Investments HAD BEEN closely....*No need for past perfect tense -- so Eliminate E

2) Looked for splits at the end of the sentence but nothing really stood out...so attacked the phrase "loopholes that / for / to enable (s) / enabling"

3) Loophole FOR enabling is incorrect -- so A and B eliminated

4) Between C and D ---> "those who still were" vs "those still" --- "those still" more concise -- C almost eliminated

5) The infinitive "to enable" better than the participle "enabling"

6) Deals had made vs. Deals might make --- C eliminated

7) D is logical and verb tenses are consistent.

In a shock to those who still lived under the impression that investments are closely monitored, a financial security group recently discovered a loophole for enabling a scammer to gain access to transactions made by a leading investment bank so that this person will be aware of any major deals that a corporation had made before these deals are announced to the public

(A) who still lived under the impression that investments are closely monitored, a financial security group recently discovered a loophole for enabling a scammer to gain access to transactions made by a leading investment bank so that this person will be aware of any major deals that a corporation had made

(B) who had still been living under the impression that investments are closely monitored, a financial security group recently discovered a loophole for enabling a scammer to gain access to transactions made by a leading investment bank so that this person was aware of any major deals that a corporation might have made

(C) who still were living under the impression that investments are closely monitored, a financial security group recently discovered a loophole enabling a scammer to gain access to transactions made by a leading investment bank so that this person will be aware of any major deals that a corporation had made

(D) still living under the impression that investments are closely monitored, a financial security group recently discovered a loophole that enables a scammer to gain access to transactions made by leading investment banks so that this person is aware of any major deals that a corporation might make

(E) still living under the impression that investments had been closely monitored, a financial security group recently discovered a loophole that will enable a scammer to gain access to transactions made by leading investment banks so that this person was aware of any major deals that a corporation might make


I started ruled out E becasue of usage of "had been", then ruled out A and B for unidomatic "for enabling" and C because missing pronoun for loophole.

Did any one observe

(D) still living under the impression that investments are closely monitored, a financial security group recently discovered a loophole that enables a scammer to gain access to transactions made by leading investment banks so that this person is aware of any major deals that a corporation might make

How are the highlighted items consistent? - Eliminated D for same reason. Or is it a typo?

What is the inconsistency? could you enlighten?
is that the 'banks' are plural and a corporation singular?

Yeah.. ofcoarse..

Can we relate a singular term to plural?

Think of an employer who employs several employees. Can we not put them together at all? Here Banks refers to those intermediaries who broker deals like mergers, acquisitions and divestment. The examples are Goldman Sachs. Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase etc to name a few. Those who employ them are a totally disparate group of corporations such as Microsoft, GoogleInc. Apple Ind etc;. One corporation may employ several investment banks, and one bank may work for several corporations. There is no need for a number agreement between the two groups.

A suffers from some errors:(1)for enabling..using in order to would better fit but still, meaning or purpose issue (2)after so that we should use present simple in stead of future..so, will should be omitted (3)past perfect..always we should use past perfect cautiously..here does not fit at all
B suffers from..(1)past perfect continuous? while with still (2)for enabling (3) was aware (4)might have made
C suffers from..(1)who still were living (2)after so that we should omit will (3)had made
D suffers from...not any since usage of recently here contains no split. Moreover, recently can be used with past simple( His uncle recently died),but such usage is rarely encouraged.
E suffers from ..(1)had been closely monitored (2)will enable (3) was aware
So my answer is D unless there is an option F that fixes the issue of recently.

if we see had done, we have to find a past mark/action for past perfect.

the meaning difference between "noun doing" and "noun for doing" is that

in the first the noun is the performer of doing, in the second, the noun not te performer.

The setting of the topic is as follows. A financial group recently discovered a loophole that might upset those who take things for granted that everything is fine in the financial world. The loophole can help a fraudster to become aware confidential deals made by companies and he can exploit that information for his advantage before others can join the bandwagon. This is relating to the eventualities after the recent discovery and relevant to all those who still are under the illusion. So any reference to a past tense for those who live, such as ‘who lived’, ‘who had lived’ and ‘who still were living’ is logically wrong.
This sense is best expressed by a tenseless present participle such as 'living'. Therefore, A, B and C are out of the reckoning by logic.

Between D and E, The shift of tense from 'will enable' to 'was aware' makes the choice ungrammatical.
Therefore, D is the best.

One doubt...
how is it present tense? post the discovery the impression would have altered no?

This is pertinent to those who live rather than those who lived. (That we cannot combine ‘still’ with a past tense is yet another thing.) Because, in the real world, not all can know all things simultaneously; some would have known yesterday, yet a few may know just today, and still others may know only tomorrow; our concern is about those who have still not known fully.
After all, these are general beliefs that may not go wrong because of strict oversight by the authorities that be. Yet don’t we see scandals day in and day out nor can the central banks give a guarantee that there will be no guarantees in the future?
Therefore, for such generalizations, it is best to go tenseless.

Daagh
Sometimes we are not able to decipher the meaning of the sentence in less than a minute.
If you have to choose the options grammatically, what would have been your approach
Also can you please answer my question :
1) In a shock to those who still lived under the impression : Is this construction correct ?

282552
Hi
If it is not possible to decipher the meaning in less than a minute, probably one cannot decipher it even after a couple of minutes. In such an unfortunate eventuality case, you have to start the POE; first of all, even a cursory glance will reveal that one can easily eliminate A and B for using the wrong idiom ‘for enabling’. In C, the shift tense from past tense to present is blatantly wrong in saying that ---who were still living … that investments are closely monitored ---
D and E use the precise idiom ‘that enables’. The issue is about a recent discovery whose effect is going to be felt immediately and hence a present tense verb such as that enables is required as in D, rather than a future tense verb ‘will enable’; Similarly we need a present tense such as ‘is aware’ rather than the past tense ‘was aware’.
While understanding the meaning is certainly a requirement, the POE by grammar might help to eliminate three or four wrong elements since the correct choice will anyway have to be without grammatical flaws.
Finally, I do not see much point in fixing a uniform time- limit for all the questions. In a test, there will be some easy ones as well as some tough ones. One cannot afford not to attempt a question because he or she cannot understand. Such an airtight approach will unnerve some in critical moments. During the prep time, the goal should be to somehow reach the destination so that it will be easy for you to understand a question with similar concepts on the test.
If you want an idea, read as much American fiction as possible, by eminent authors such as Ayn Rand, Arthur Hailey, Sidney Sheldon, Irving Wallace, Ken Follett, Alistair MacLean, and Wodehouse to name a few. You will get many of these meanings right. I learnt it that way. If you want, you can too.

Thanks Daagh
Yeah I agree there should always be a PLAN B in place if PLAN A fails.
Do you recommend any books from the authors mentioned above ?

Sentence correction is best solved by POE (process of elimination). Understanding the meaning and applying grammar rules are the cornerstone or ideal way to approach.

Sometimes, if you are not able to understand the meaning then look for following positions in the underlined section :

- First few word(s)
- Last few word (s)
- Word(s) after ,
- Word after/before underlined portion

These locations help to emilimate options quickly and eventually sometimes help to undertand the meaning of the sentence.

Hope this helps.

yes, Irving Wallace, Ayn Rand, Wodehouse for tough English; Sidney Sheldon, Arthur Hailey for the flow of language