feruz77 wrote:
Even though the prosecutors are reluctant to speak to the media about such cases, they can, and often are, forthcoming with official statements to the press.
(A) can, and often are, forthcoming with official statements to the press.
(B) can be, and often are, forthcoming with official statements to the press.
(C) can be, and often has been, forthcoming with official statements to the press.
(D) may have been, and often are, forthcoming with official statements to the press.
(E) might be, and often has been, forthcoming with official statements to the press.
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:
(Asymmetry/Two-Part Sentence) if we remove the second main clause (“and often are”) from the sentence we get the expression “they [prosecutors] can forthcoming with official statements to the press.”
“Can” is only an auxiliary verb, and cannot form a predicate of a sentence by itself. So, there is lack of symmetry in this two-part sentence, and it should be corrected as “they can be forthcoming with official statements to the press.” (Or reinserting the “and often are,” “they can be, and often are, forthcoming with official statements to the press.”)
(B) makes this correction, and does not have any other error, and is the answer.The introducing of the present perfect tense (“often has been”) in (C) is wrong, because the verb in the sentence (“can be”) is in the simple present tense.
(D) can also be rejected for the same reason. It has the additional error of introducing and element of doubt in the use of the phrase “may have been,” whereas the author’s intention is to make a positive assertion about prosecutor’s statements to the press. (E) unnecessarily mixes the past tense (“might be”) and present perfect tense (“has been”) and can be rejected for that reason.
_________________