Even though the prosecutors are reluctant to speak to the

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

(Asymmetry/Two-Part Sentence) if we remove the second main clause (“and often are”) from the sentence we get the expression “they [prosecutors] can forthcoming with official statements to the press.”

“Can” is only an auxiliary verb, and cannot form a predicate of a sentence by itself. So, there is lack of symmetry in this two-part sentence, and it should be corrected as “they can be forthcoming with official statements to the press.” (Or reinserting the “and often are,” “they can be, and often are, forthcoming with official statements to the press.”)

(B) makes this correction, and does not have any other error, and is the answer.

The introducing of the present perfect tense (“often has been”) in (C) is wrong, because the verb in the sentence (“can be”) is in the simple present tense.

(D) can also be rejected for the same reason. It has the additional error of introducing and element of doubt in the use of the phrase “may have been,” whereas the author’s intention is to make a positive assertion about prosecutor’s statements to the press. (E) unnecessarily mixes the past tense (“might be”) and present perfect tense (“has been”) and can be rejected for that reason.

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.