Thanks a lot for your response AndrewN That helped

(A) to the shortage of regulations to protect investors and a serious lack of information about investments in others
Meaning is perfect therefore let us hang on to it

(B) to the shortage of regulations to protect investors and in others a serious lack of information about investments
and in in the middle distorts the meaning and is not reaquired

(C) and the shortage of regulations to protect investors and a serious lack of information about investments in others
the only problem being the inclusion of and in the begining

(D) and the shortage of regulations to protect investors to a serious lack of information about investments in others
and is not required in the begining and to a serious isn't the right usage

(E) to the shortage of regulations to protect investors in others and a serious lack of information about investments
The only problem being the absence of others in the end

Therefore IMO A

In Option A, which is the correct answer, the construction appears as follows:

From X to Y & Z

However, shouldn't Y & Z be parallel, since ''and'' is a parallelism trigger?

I find that ''to protect'' in Y is a verb, but Z doesn't have any verb . Then how they could be parallel?

Please guide.

Also, I am summarizing from below question that'' From X to Y'' is always a correct construction with no exception to this rule. Also, ''From X and Y to Z'' is always incorrect. However, ''From X to Y and Z'' could also be correct version like in this option A. Please let me know if this would be a good takeaway for this question.

Regards
Vighnesh

Ok, I got that noun phrases are parallel. But what about ''to protect investors''? There is a verb ''protect'', don't we need another verb to make it parallel. I am confused as sometimes we say verb phrases are parallel and at other times, noun phrases are parallel. So, how to decide whether it is a noun or verb phrase. What needs to be made parallel? Hope you got my query.

Hello VIGHNESHKAMATH,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, here, "to protect investors" serves as a modifier acting upon the noun "regulations".

Thus, the structure of the noun phrase is "main noun ("shortage") + of + second noun ("regulations") + modifier ("to protect investors")".

Parallelism is maintained between the primary nouns of the two noun phrases - "shortage" and "lack".

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
_________________

Courtesy Stacey Koprince (Manhattan)- Found this one helpful

. The first split is the idiom "from X to Y." Answers C and D both break this idiom by using "and" instead of "to" so eliminate C and D.

"In others" is referring back to "in some countries." We want parallelism here (because we're using the idiom from X to Y) - X and Y need to be parallel. A, B, and E are all identical for the opening bit (the shortage of regulations to protect investors) so I just need to make sure I keep it up. We essentially want "from X in some countries to Y in others."

B moves "in others" to the middle of the answer choice, making "in others" apply only to the lack of info. That's not good enough - it also needs to apply to the shortage of regulations. E essentially has the same problem (in reverse) b/c "in others" is applying only to the shortage and not to the lack.

Only A keeps "in others" at the end so that it applies to all of Y ("the shortage of regulations to protect investors and a serious lack of information about investments"). Note that the whole compound phrase = Y; they're just trying to mess us up by making it a compound phrase (compound phrase = phrase containing "and").