amritakeswani
GMATNinjaI read your article aroun usage of "being". I didn't reject option B in this question because of "being" and kept it conservatively. But I did reject "D" because there was no clarity of whose inoculation we are talking about. It looks like my lack of clarity is not valid for option D. But am I right if I didn't reject B because of "being"?
It might be helpful to ask yourself two questions when it comes to evaluating "being." First, is the construction logical? And second, would I lose anything if I simply cut the word?
When I see the phrase "evidence of their being" in (B), my first thought is "evidence that they
exist?" That doesn't make any sense -- travelers are pretty conspicuous.
If I reread it, I can figure out what the author means, but it's certainly less than ideal. "Being inoculated," makes it sound as though this is an ongoing process that may well be happening during the orientation meeting. So the meaning is questionable, at best.
Next, I'll ask myself if I lose anything if we cut "being." It would be tough to argue that "evidence of their being inoculated" is any clearer or more logical than "evidence of inoculation," which we have in option (D).
Taken together, "being" creates a confusing meaning, and it's unnecessary. Is it a definitive grammatical error? Not really. But is it inferior to (D), which is clearer and more concise? Absolutely. So (D) wins.
I hope that helps!