Is C rejected because of redundancy? Or is there any other error in it?

(C) Contrary to the scholarly wisdom of the 1950’s and early 1960’s that predicted the processes of modernization and rationalization would be a gradual undermining of ethnicity, ethnicity is a worldwide phenomenon of increasing importance.

Contrary to the scholarly wisdom of the 1950’s and early 1960’s that predicted the processes of modernization and rationalization would gradually undermine it, ethnicity is a worldwide phenomenon of increasing importance.

(A) would gradually undermine it
(B) to be a gradual undermining of it
(C) would be a gradual undermining of ethnicity
(D) to gradually undermine ethnicity
(E) gradually undermining it

Source: GMAC Paper Test, Test Code #55, Section 6, Question 8

How are we rejecting D here? I think D makes complete sense. Need help. Is it because subject is after comma and we need a pronoun so that it could refer to ethnicity? else it looks like adverbial phrase "contrary to scholarly........." would modify ethnicity. IanStewart AndrewN GMATNinja

D really doesn't make much sense..
The scholarly wisdom that predicted x and y to gradually undermine ethnicity

How does that make sense? What's the effect of "scholarly wisdom" on undermining the ethnicity? It's not apparent or clear whatsoever with D

Dear experts, kindly help me with choice D, why it is wrong and why do we need a verb(would) as in option A,

Hi SALAKSHYA,

Predicted can be used in the passive with a to, but this sentence doesn't do that. Here, predicted is in the active voice. In such situations, we can't use an infinitive (to + the plain form of a verb) after predicted.

1. ... the scholarly wisdom of the 1950’s and early 1960’s that predicted the processes of X and Y to gradually undermine Z...

Hi AjiteshArun

Could you please explain why predicted to is wrong

Excuse me, but I have to firmly disagree with this sentence as a whole, including the answer choices.

Contrary to the scholarly wisdom of the 1950’s and early 1960’s that predicted the processes of modernization and rationalization would gradually under mine it, ethnicity is a worldwide phenomenon of increasing importance

"it" here clearly refers to ethnicity and it doesn't make sense, therefore it's incorrect. All the answer choices either repeat the same ambigous use of "it" or create redundancy by using "ethnicity" twice ,so to be correct the sentence would have to be rewritten in some other way.

Of course you can say that the only way for this sentence to make sense, given the answer choices provided, is to assume that "it" refers to the following "ethnicity" but come on, in this case the SC becomes subjective to one's interpretation of the meaning, following this logic you can discuss the meaning of virtually any SC question. There have to be objective reasons to consider a choice correct.

Here, the way I see it, the question given is not written in a good way to test SC skills and creates the "wrong" type of difficulty. Instead of testing objective knowledge it tests subjective interpretation of the meaning.

What you guys think? I am I missing some exotic rule here? For a 600+ question there shouldn't be any though.

I consider this question a bit outdated because "predicted" didn't follow by “that”, usually you would want “that” so that there can be an IC afterward. I chose D because it is the only case that avoid using another verb and makes sense at the same time. I didn't know that it is unidiomatic. If the question included "that" after "predicted", it would make a lot more sense.

I consider this question a bit outdated because "predicted" didn't follow by “that”, usually you would want “that” so that there can be an IC afterward.

I consider this question a bit outdated because "predicted" didn't follow by “that”, usually you would want “that” so that there can be an IC afterward. I chose D because it is the only case that avoid using another verb and makes sense at the same time. I didn't know that it is unidiomatic. If the question included "that" after "predicted", it would make a lot more sense.