At the press conference, the CEO denied in the

From the underline text onwards, the sentence is trying to say:
corporation's lawyers provided undue favorable influence in the imminent embezzlement trials. The lawyers did this for the six charged senior officers.

A: they is ambiguous (lawyers vs officers)
B, C: awkward wording - had the ability of providing, ability to is the correct idiom
E: being able is awkward and very indirect way of saying when a better option D is available.

D is concise and good with placing the subject and verb as close as possible .

I have a doubt in options "C" and "D". The statement says "...they could provide". Shouldn't it be "C" then as "D" clearly says "..were able to" which sort conflicts with the problem statement?

From Magoosh:

1) Split #1: the word orders “the six charged senior officers” and “the six senior charged officers” are awkward: answers (A) & (B) & (E) have these variants. It sounds awkward to mix the participle “charged” with ordinary adjectives. The order “the six senior officers charged” sounds considerably more natural — it separates the adjective before the noun, where they should be, and the participle after the noun.

Split #2: idiom. The idioms “able to do X” or “ability to do X” are correct, and the idiom “ability of doing X” is wrong: choices (B) & (C) make this mistake.

Split #3: missing verb. In choice (E), instead of a full verb inside the “that” clause, we have only a participle, “being” — the subject “lawyers” has no legitimate verb. (E) is incorrect.

Split #4: double subject. In choice (A), we have the structure “… lawyers … they could provide” — both the noun “lawyers” and the pronoun “they” could be the subject of the verb, but they can’t both be the subject of the same verb simultaneously.

For all these reasons, (D) is the only possible answer.

egmat can you please provide the meaning analysis.

But the meaning of word "imminent" is in future and therefore I do not know how "were able" in option D (not C) feels fit to you. Can you please explain the timeline of events?

At the press conference, the CEO denied in the most strenuous terms that his corporation's lawyers for the six charged senior officers they could provide undue favorable influence in the imminent embezzlement trials.

A) for the six charged senior officers they could provide -> "six charged senior officers" is incorrect.
B) for the six senior charged officers had the ability of providing -> "six senior charged officers" is incorrect.
C) had the ability, for the six senior officers charged, of providing -> "ability of providing" is incorrect idiom.
D) were able to provide for the six senior officers charged -> Better, Let's keep it.
E) being able to provide for the six senior charged officers -> Same as B.

So, I think D.

Imminent means "about to happen".so isn't were the wrong auxiliary verb?

Posted from my mobile device

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.