In the U.S. Presidential election of 1876, Democrat Samuel Tilden clea

Not sure what do you mean by "less complex and easy to understand" here. Looking back, I can see that A is correct but not sure if we have a reason to explain why B is wrong.

what is "with" modifying? it is not clear in B. hence IMO B is wrong.

daagh
Hi Sir,
Can you please explain this question.

MAGOOSH OE:

A question about Samuel Tilden and the controversial 1876 Presidential Election.

Choice (A) is a grammatical correct structure known as an absolute phrase. This choice is idiomatically correct and logically clear. This is a promising choice.

Choice (B) commits an error involving the structure "with" + [noun] + [participle]. As discussed in this blog, this structure is fine for descriptive detail, but for action by a different actor, as we have in this sentence, this structure puts too much action inside a prepositional phrase. For these reasons, (B) is incorrect.

Choice (C) makes a logical mistake. In the situation described, Tilden's supporters acquiesced in exchange for somebody else giving the order of withdrawing the Federal troops from the South. In other words, Tilden's supporters had no direct dealings with the Federal troops and certainly didn't exchange these troops for anything. Choice (C) is incorrect.

Choice (D) also changes the meaning. In this choice, the final part is stated as two separate fact: (1) Tilden's supporters acquiesced as an exchange (an exchange for what??) and separately (2) Federal troops withdrew. In this choice, it's not clear whether these two facts have any logical connection at all. This is very different from the prompt meaning. Choice (D) is incorrect.

Choice (E) also changes the meaning by change nature of the exchange; this phrasing suggests that all the action after the last comma were in exchange for something earlier in the sentence, and this is very different from the prompt meaning. Choice (E) is incorrect.

Choice (A) is the only possible answer.

In the U.S. Presidential election of 1876, Democrat Samuel Tilden clearly won the popular vote, but after party leaders resolved disputes about electoral votes in four states, they declared Republican Rutherford B. Hayes the winner, Tilden's supporters acquiescing in exchange for the withdrawal of Federal troops from the South.

A) Tilden's supporters acquiescing in exchange for the withdrawal of Federal troops
B) with Tilden's supporters acquiescing because, in an exchange, Federal troops withdrew
-lacks clarity, what is this 'exchange'? ...exchange for what?
C) and Tilden's supporters acquiesced when they exchanged Federal troops withdrawing
-it's impossible to exchange 'withdrawing'
D) but Tilden's supporters acquiesced as an exchange and Federal troops withdrew
-disconnect between acquiescing and 'withdrew' (contrast this with a) where acquiescing was exchanged for the WITHDRAWAL
E) in exchange causing Tilden's supporters to acquiesce when Federal troops withdrew
-prepositional modifier...presumably modifying 'they declared...'...nonsense

Hi,
I am finding it very hard to get how the part "Tilden's supports acquiescing...." fits into the sentence.
That doesn't look like a clause, how does it connect with the main sentence.

Hi,
I am finding it difficult to get how the part "Tilden's supports acquiescing...." fits into the sentence.
That doesn't look like a clause, how does it connect with the main sentence. What the over-simplified sentence would look like?

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.