The study involved 1000 patients whose cardiac disease was not well

This is a Veritas Prep Exam 6 question. Can anyone confirm why C and E are wrong? I understand that by using the word 'but' the sentence shows a contrast between patients whose cardiac disease was not well controlled and (but) patients who were suffering from persistent symptoms. How do we know that the intention here is not to show the contrast? Can anyone please elaborate?

I don't see any ambiguity in option B. Is there any other problem with that option?
Can we have OE.
Thanks.

Posted from my mobile device

It looks like there is nothing here to contrast; the patients involved in the study suffered from out-of-control cardiac disease AND they also dealt with persistent symptoms. You would use ‘but’ if the patients suffer from uncontrollable cardiac disease BUT were able to mitigate some aspect of the illness. In this case, these poor people are facing one negative situation after another, so we use AND, not BUT. Also, I think the correct answer is D; it’s the only answer that uses ‘who’, and that leads to correct parallelism.


Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

@ma1Z...Thank you so much - that was really useful. I appreciate the help!

Another question: Is it idiomatic to say 'suffered symptoms' or 'suffered from symptoms'? I would have gone with the later ,but apparently the former is not wrong.

You’re right. In this case, either could work. I don’t think there is a specific idiom issue here. You usually use ‘suffered from’ when the cause of the suffering follows the word ‘from’. But isn’t it kind of obvious that the suffering was caused in part by the persistent symptoms? It almost seems inefficient to add ‘from’. It’s strange because when I first looked at this question I didn’t even consider the ‘suffered from’ versus ‘suffered’. I just noticed the other issues with the sentence. Nevertheless, take everything I’ve said with a grain of salt because I still need to study SC.


Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

daagh Sir can you throw some light on this "that had been lasting for at least a year"?
I am really confused by the usage of "had been lasting".
Thanks

PeepalTree "Had been lasting" is terrible. They shouldn't have used that. You couldn't say "my symptoms have been lasting for a year," so there's no justification for saying "had been lasting."

However, D is the only option that has a workable structure. As PiyushK highlighted above, we need the "who" (or "whose"), since all of this is part of a modifier for "patients." The rest of the choices are all trying to introduce a second verb for the patients when we never had a first verb.

This sentence contains a tricky sentence construction issue that you will likely miss unless you “Slash and Burn” the unnecessary parts of the sentence. The sentence is trying to show that there are two things relating to the 1000 patients: patients “whose cardiac disease was not well controlled….and who had not suffered persistent symptoms”. In (A), (B), (C) and (E) the verb forms following the dash are illogically referring back to cardiac disease. Take (B) for instance - without the “and who” it reads like this: “patients whose cardiac disease was not well controlled and suffered…” The suffered is not referring back to patients but is necessarily part of the “whose” clause and is commanded illogically by “cardiac disease”. Only (D) corrects this issue - that choice should be a major “decision points” hint to carefully analyze why the “who” might be required in this sentence. Answer is (D).

If you were between B and D

B mentions suffered , but who suffered ?

D corrects that mistake