Hi
GMATNinjaThe controversy has divided the Senate, causing strains in the commission, provoking public charges by industry officials that the banking chief is overreaching his authority, and private complaints that he is “reckless” and “stubborn.”
A.causing strains in the commission, provoking public charges by industry officials that the banking chief is overreaching his authority, and private complaints that he is “reckless” and “stubborn.”
B.causing strains in the commission and provoking public charges by industry officials that the banking chief is overreaching his authority, with private complaints that he is “reckless” and “stubborn.”
C.caused strains in the commission, and provoked public charges by industry officials that the banking chief is overreaching his authority and that private complaints that he is “reckless” and “stubborn.”
D.caused strains in the commission, provoked public charges by industry officials that the banking chief is overreaching his authority and private complaints that he is “reckless” and “stubborn.”
E.caused strains in the commission, and provoked public charges by industry officials that the banking chief is overreaching his authority and private complaints that he is “reckless” and “stubborn.”
This is one of the veritas prep questions.
But I found this question difficult because I could not understand the meaning of the sentence properly.
What I understood:
The controversy divided the senate
Result:1. Led to strains in commission
2. provoked public charges and private complaints.
The subject, controversy, is responsible for the actions. Hence the actions agree with the subject.
Hence these results make sense.
SO apart from the non existing conjunction "and", I couldn't find any error in this sentence.
In option b:
that the banking chief is overreaching his authority, with private complaints that he is “reckless” and “stubborn.”
the "with private complaints" implies that the banking chief is overreaching his authority with private complaints.
I BELIEVE THIS IS ILLOGICAL MEANING AND NOT CHANGE IN MEANING.
HENCE THIS OPTION IS INCORRECT.
IN option C, D and E, there is a change of meaning. Now I am comfortable with a change in meaning because the other options do not make sense.
But if an option stated:
causing strains in the commission,
AND provoking public charges by industry officials that the banking chief is overreaching his authority, and private complaints that he is “reckless” and “stubborn.”
Would this them be correct and preferred over the the correct option E which states that the controversy did 3 things?
Thank you in advance for your help.
Regards
Nitesh