In June 2012 the Rhode Island General Assembly had voted to repeal a

In June 2012, the Rhode Island General Assembly had voted to repeal a law enacted in 1989 that made lying online a misdemeanor, citing the illogic of trying to enforce something that is so often innocently violated.

the time sequence is clear with 'In June 2012' and we don't need a redundant past perfect 'had voted' which seems to convey that the assembly already had voted in 2012. A and C

E) voted for repealing a law enacted in 1989 that had made lying online a misdemeanor, having cited the illogic of trying to enforce something that is so often
same logic in E, we are not comparing two past events - just restrictively modifying 'the law enacted in 1989'. E

I think voted for or voted to something is better than voted in favor of to something (voted for 'gerund'), and I am not convinced with the use of "has made" while talking about an event happened in 2012.

d) voted in favor of to repeal a law enacted in 1989 that has made lying online a misdemeanor, citing the illogic of attempting to enforce something that is so often

Generally, I get a bit confused in tense usage for statements involving laws or laws that were repealed (similar one here). Still, I feel B is correct.

B) voted to repeal a law enacted in 1989 that made lying online a misdemeanor, citing the illogic of trying to enforce something that is so often

IMO B
Highlighting the redundant/grammatical errors.

In June 2012, the Rhode Island General Assembly had voted to repeal a law enacted in 1989 that made lying online a misdemeanor, citing the illogic of trying to enforce something that is so often innocently violated.

A) had voted to repeal a law enacted in 1989 that made lying online a misdemeanor, citing the illogic of trying to enforce something that is so often

B) voted to repeal a law enacted in 1989 that made lying online a misdemeanor, citing the illogic of trying to enforce something that is so often

C) had voted to repeal a law enacted in 1989 that made lying online a misdemeanor, citing the illogic of the trying to enforce something that is so often

d) voted in favor of to repeal a law enacted in 1989 that has made lying online a misdemeanor, citing the illogic of attempting to enforce something that is so often

E) voted for repealing a law enacted in 1989 that had made lying online a misdemeanor, having cited the illogic of trying to enforce something that is so often

Had is used when describing 2 events in the past, the event with 'had' happened before the one without. Here, voting is performed in 2012, which is after 1989, so use of had is incorrect with voted. A and C eliminated.

D eliminated because 'Voted in favour of to ' is unidiomatic.

E uses 'had' in second part, but we already know the event talked about happened before another event since timeline has been established. Thus, using had is unneccessary.

Thus answer is B.

1. "had voted" is not right. It should be "voted" to refer to past tense. Past perfect is not required. Elimate A and C
2. Out of B, D and E: In D, "voted in favor of to" is wrong due to wrong prepositional placement. In E, "having cited" is wrong due to incorrect modifier usage. Option B solves all issues.

Correct Answer- B

We use past perfect tense to sequence 2 past actions, where HAD comes in front of action which has occurred prior to other past action in the discussion.

In the question context, we have only 1 past action (assembly -> voted), we dont require past perfect tense . Eliminate A, C

TO + VERB conveys purpose, whereas FOR + VERBING tells What for ? As the purpose of the vote is to repeal the law we need TO REPEAL
Eliminate E

In D, In favour of should be followed by noun, verb, not TO + verb or For + verbing Eliminate D

IMO B

In June 2012, the Rhode Island General Assembly had voted to repeal a law enacted in 1989 that made lying online a misdemeanor, citing the illogic of trying to enforce something that is so often innocently violated.

A) had voted to repeal a law enacted in 1989 that made lying online a misdemeanor, citing the illogic of trying to enforce something that is so often Incorrect

tense error - uses had wrong

B) voted to repeal a law enacted in 1989 that made lying online a misdemeanor, citing the illogic of trying to enforce something that is so often Correct

C) had voted to repeal a law enacted in 1989 that made lying online a misdemeanor, citing the illogic of the trying to enforce something that is so often Incorrect

tense error - uses had wrong

d) voted in favor of to repeal a law enacted in 1989 that has made lying online a misdemeanor, citing the illogic of attempting to enforce something that is so often Incorrect

meaning change - in favor of
tense error - has uses wrong, past tense required

E) voted for repealing a law enacted in 1989 that had made lying online a misdemeanor, having cited the illogic of trying to enforce something that is so often Incorrect

tense error - had uses wrong, that simply modifies law
having uses wrong

notes: "had" is to express an event before another event both in the past, not the case; (a,c) out; (d,e) in favor of + to = wrong, and "for repealing" is also incorrect.

ans (B)

In June 2012, the Rhode Island General Assembly had voted to repeal a law enacted in 1989 that made lying online a misdemeanor, citing the illogic of trying to enforce something that is so often innocently violated.

A) had voted to repeal a law enacted in 1989 that made lying online a misdemeanor, citing the illogic of trying to enforce something that is so often

B) voted to repeal a law enacted in 1989 that made lying online a misdemeanor, citing the illogic of trying to enforce something that is so often

C) had voted to repeal a law enacted in 1989 that made lying online a misdemeanor, citing the illogic of the trying to enforce something that is so often

d) voted in favor of to repeal a law enacted in 1989 that has made lying online a misdemeanor, citing the illogic of attempting to enforce something that is so often

E) voted for repealing a law enacted in 1989 that had made lying online a misdemeanor, having cited the illogic of trying to enforce something that is so often


ANS:
Let us read and deconstruct it first:

In June 2012, ( Oh something happened in 2012- look out for what.)

the Rhode Island General Assembly had voted ( SV pair. We have "had + Past Participle form of verb -> Past perfect tense is used so we are expected to find a later event for its usage generally.)
to repeal a law ( What Rhode island folks did? They voted to repeal a law). Sounds OK)
enacted (Verb + ED modifier modify "law" ) in 1989
that ( refer to "law") made ( SV pair: Law made ) lying online a misdemeanor,
citing the illogic of trying to enforce something that is so often innocently violated ( Verb + ING modifier - provides extra info about the preceding clause )

Error Analysis: Sentence looks fine meaning wise. But usage of "had voted" is not correct. We use past perfect to present sequence of events for related events to clarify to reader in which sequence the past two actions occurred. Here, Voting happened after law was enacted >logical information flow. Also the information is correctly presented using time marker in form of years. ( in 2012 and in 1989). So "had voted" is incorrect to denote later action.

A) Error as pointed above: Tense usage.

B) Correct the error of original sentence - Option A. Hold on

C) Same error as A "Had voted" usage is not correct. Look further usage of article "the". "the trying to enforce something" >> Was there any particular "trying to enforce something .... " - no such thing is mentioned. Inferior to B. Eliminate.

D) Original sentence error is resolved. Nice but new errors introduced. "voted in favour of to repeal a law" is wordy and messier to communicate same idea compared to option B, which is clean. "that has made lying" - present perfect use to tell that the effect of the law is still present but the law was repealed in 2012 so effect is not present logically till now. Tense error. ( Just for fun: Unless the sentence was written in 2012 just after the law was repealed and the actual fact/news got buried and did not reach you and some effect still prevailed ?? >> too much thinking Be logical, its GMAT ) Usage of "attempting" vs "trying" - i will not think too much about it. There are bigger issues in this sentence - Eliminate.

E) "Voted for repeaing" vs "voted to repeal" -> voted to is better but as Charles Aka GMAT Ninja has told multiple times , we are not here to learn all idioms. So find more things to eliminate. "had made" usage is correct - tell us about a past event -> law was made and now repealed ( later event). Some could argue and say we have a time marker present ( in 1989) so past perfect is not required. Well , i won't be 100% confident by its presence personally to eliminate the option. Yeah, a bit redundant compared to option B which is far clear and superior. (+1 vote to B)
"Having cited .... " > so someone cited illogic... >> i expect another action since “Having verb-ed” form always indicates an action completed before another action. So basically sentence says "having cited..... " Someone did some action. Lets us see who could do the other action. Probably "Rhode island general assembly" but it does not make sense to say that "having cited... " ,Rhode island assembly voted to repeal the law..... >> distort meaning and does not make sense - eliminate ( Probably my thought train got longer than expected but i hope you find it valuable )


So Mark B . Note down your learnings and go ahead to infinity and beyond

<Off the topic>
For these SC butler questions (as mentioned in the GMAT guidelines), are correct responses not supposed to be awarded "kudos"?
I see 'Kudos' are pending for this post, which was posted on 7 Nov PST.
generis - Thanks for these daily questions anyway.

A) had voted to repeal a law enacted in 1989 that made lying online a misdemeanor, citing the illogic of trying to enforce something that is so often
C) had voted to repeal a law enacted in 1989 that made lying online a misdemeanor, citing the illogic of the trying to enforce something that is so often

"had voted". The voting can't occur before the law was enacted (simple past). Illogical. Eliminate A and C.

B) voted to repeal a law enacted in 1989 that made lying online a misdemeanor, citing the illogic of trying to enforce something that is so often -- Correct.

D) voted in favor of to repeal a law enacted in 1989 that has made lying online a misdemeanor, citing the illogic of attempting to enforce something that is so often -- "voted in favor of to repeal" what follows "of" should be a noun and not a verb "to repeal". So "voted in favor of repealing" is right since repealing is a gerund (verb acting as a noun)

E) voted for repealing a law enacted in 1989 that had made lying online a misdemeanor, having cited the illogic of trying to enforce something that is so often -- "having cited".