Kaspar Hauser, who appeared in Nuremburg in 1828 lacking any form of l

Official explanation:

(D) The answer corrects the verb-form error in the original sentence given in choice (A). As written, the sentence fails to express its intended meaning. You
know that Kaspar Hauser "appeared... in 1928 lacking any form of language" and that he made a claim about having been locked inside a darkened room throughout his childhood. As written, however, the sentence does not make it clear that it was Kaspar, himself, who had been locked inside a darkened room because the phrase "claimed that having been locked" has no clear referent. Choice (D) corrects this ambiguity by changing the tense: "claimed to have been locked".
The phrase "made the claim of having been" in choice (B) is awkward and verbose. Choice (C) changes the tense of the verb "lacking" to "had lacked," which changes the meaning. Choice (E) creates a sentence fragment by changing the tense of the verb "claimed" to "claiming".
Therefore, choice (D) is the only correct answer

In option D before "lacking" it need comma.
In absence of same it modified "Nuremburg in 1828", something dont have any sense.

I checked official question again, but could not find any comma

Option D should have a comma. I eliminated that option as there is a modifier error.

Can you explain why is option B incorrect?
IMO, according to option D "having been locked" would mean that he is still locked. option B corrects this.
Also, according to the official answer, Option B was eliminated because it was "awkward and verbose". Is this sufficient to eliminate an option? Shouldn't it be eliminated on the basis of rules of grammar?

Kaspar Hauser, who appeared in Nuremburg in 1828 lacking any form of language, claimed that having been locked inside a darkened room all throughout his childhood, imprisoned by a man who never let himself be seen.

A. lacking any form of language, claimed that having been locked - Incorrect.

B. and lacked any form of language, made the claim of having been locked. incorrect

C. and had lacked any form of language, claimed that he was locked - Incorrect

D. lacking any form of language, claimed to have been locked - Correct usage of "claimed to have been locked"

E. and who lacked any form of language, claiming that someone had locked him. incorrect

Without the comma, it seems that 1828 is lacking in any language. Hence, its incorrectly modifying 1828 instead of "who".
Further, even if we insert comma, how does lacking modify the verb appear? Can someone please explain?

Hi, I was hoping to understand why the use of "lacking any form of language" without a comma is correct in this sentence. Ideally verb-ing without a comma modifies the noun just close to it - in this case, grammatically verb-ing (lacking) seems to be modifying 1828 or even Nuremberg (if we skip the preposition) BUT meaning-wise lacking should modify Kaspar Hauser. I ended up rejecting the correct choice (D) on this solely.

Hi, I was hoping to understand why the use of "lacking any form of language" without a comma is correct in this sentence. Ideally verb-ing without a comma modifies the noun just close to it - in this case, grammatically verb-ing (lacking) seems to be modifying 1828 or even Nuremberg (if we skip the preposition) BUT meaning-wise lacking should modify Kaspar Hauser. I ended up rejecting the correct choice (D) on this solely.

egmat manhattan