priyankur_saha@ml.com wrote:
An international convention regulating trade in endangered species, especially bears and tigers, [u]could be significantly weakened were it not for restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species, warn conservation and animal welfare groups.
priyankur_saha@ml.com wrote:
(A) could be significantly weakened were it not for restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species, warn conservation and animal welfare groups.
The meaninig isn't correct there is a missing of if
priyankur_saha@ml.com wrote:
(B) could be significantly weakened if restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species aren't eased, warn conservation and animal welfare groups.
aren't eased isn't correct usage since it provides ambigious meaning
priyankur_saha@ml.com wrote:
(C) couldn't be significantly weakened without restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species being eased, warn conservation and animal welfare groups.
couldn't isn't the right intended meaning the restriction is required and not completely against it
priyankur_saha@ml.com wrote:
(D) can't be significantly weakened if restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species are eased, warn conservation and animal welfare groups
.
Similar reasoning as C
priyankur_saha@ml.com wrote:
(E) could be significantly weakened if restrictions on captive breeding of endangered species are eased, warn conservation and animal welfare groups
.
This is the intended meaning hence the answer
Therefore IMO E