The controversy has divided the Senate, caused strains in

I like B better. Cause and Effect. Divide in senate --> causing strain and provoking

why not D? do we need 'and' before proposed?

B is a change in meaning. The controversy has caused the strain and not the division of senate.


In the original sentence there are actually 2 parallelisms:
1. divided the Senate, caused strains in the commission, and provoked public charges
2. provoked public charges bla bla bla and private complaints that he is “reckless” and “stubborn.”

Option D is creating parallelism among all these 4 items mentioned above which is incorrect

A very good question indeed. Here we have the famous -ing modifier in a couple of answer choices. Remember that -ing modifier reflect the results of the action in the previous clause or modifies the clause before it.

Here :
The controversy has divided the Senate, causing blah blah -> is incorrect. The senate is not strained as a result of the controversy rather the controversy itself did 3 things : has divided the Senate, caused strains in the commission and provoked public charges. This leaves out C and E as the contenders. Now , between C and E, E has the parallel structure. by industry officials that .....and private complaints that ....Whereas C violates parallelism. by industry officials that the banking chief..... and that private complaints that he....

C wins.

E is the answer
Correct Parallelism
Caused X, and provoked x and y.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk 2

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.”
Incorrect - becausing causing changes the meaning. It is the controversy which caused this not division over contoversy.
Verb-ed should be used.

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.”
Same as A

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.”
that before private complaints does not have any antecendent.

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.”
and before provoked is missing for parallelism.

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 correct.

The controversy has divided the Senate, 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.”


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.”

First the controversy did x & y
so Controversy has divided---- and Provoked so divided & provoked should be Parallel
Eliminate A & B
In D provoked, after "," specifies action of Senate hence wrong. eliminate
left with C & E
Eliminate C that private complaints that he is wordy
Option E Correct

This sentence has two different lists:
The controversy has
1.divided
2.caused strains
3.and provoked
1.public charges
2. private complaints
Only E obeys this parallelism..

The controversy has divided the Senate, 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.”


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.”
Not parallel to "divided"

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.”
Same as of A.

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.”
"That" separates this list of actions. To make it easier to understand this portion of the sentence you can remove some of it.

and provoked public charges by industry officials that the banking chief is overreaching his authorityand that private complaints that he is “reckless” and “stubborn.”

As you can see "that" does not belong here.

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.”
There must be an "and" before "provoked"


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.”
Perfect

Here :
The controversy has divided the Senate, causing blah blah -> is incorrect. The senate is not strained as a result of the controversy rather the controversy itself did 3 things : has divided the Senate, caused strains in the commission and provoked public charges. This leaves out C and E as the contenders. Now , between C and E, E has the parallel structure. by industry officials that .....and private complaints that ....Whereas C violates parallelism. by industry officials that the banking chief..... and that private complaints that he....

C wins

I chose E and here are my reasons:

A is definitely wrong because in a list of things.. " causing strains in the commission", "provoking public charges by industry officials that the banking" the "that" introduces a new clause making the list nonparrallel.

Kindly note the ",and" which comes between "commission" and "provoked" is very important since it demarcates that a new clause not part of the list emerges.

Hence we are left with only C and E.

In option C.. that private complaints that he is “reckless” and “stubborn.” the "that" in bold is unnecessary since it does not act as either as a connector nor as an introduction to a new subject distorting the meaning.

Hence E.

How 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.” The was this reads is as if the banking chief is overreaching his authority AND private complaints - how can one overreach private complaints?

Something doesn't make sense for me here and this is why I chose B).

Eager to hear some further comments.

Jay

Hi,

IMO you have to read the sentence in the context it is used.. In B the phrase starting with "with" is not connected to the main body though the remaining sentence looks okay.

In E.. the sentence reads like.."and provoked public charges...... and private complaints". the bolded texts sort of go parallel.

Point 1 Actually choice E should be marked as A. That is the replica of the underlined text in the prompt.

2. It should be first established as to how many things did the controversy lead to. Maybe three things logically IMO: 1. divided the Senate 2. caused strains in the commission( it is not clear what the commission stands for. Maybe it refers to the Senate, but my doubt is whether one can downgrade a Parliamentary House to a level of a commission, a commission often being an ad-hoc committee) and 3. provoked public charges and private complaints. This the setting in choice E, a perfect foil in the context, I believe.

3. However if it is argued that the controversy just divided the Senate as the core problem, relegating the straining and provoking public and private complaints as an effect of the dividing, then there is a hole in that argument. That the controversy divided the Senate causing strains in the commission is acceptable but the second part of provoking public charges and private complaints cannot certainly be part of the division of the Senate. The division is inside the House and has nothing to do with protests outside the house in the country. We cannot participle the provoking part but should only tense it separately. So, B is logically flawed.

In addition, B is also structurally flawed by using the prepositional phrase “with private complaints that he is “reckless” and “stubborn.”. It is not clear what the ‘with’ stands for. One cannot provoke public a charges with private complaints. Private complaints are a separate factor and hence should be conjugated with a coordinator such as ‘and ‘ and not separated by a comma.

4. The correct way to parse the prompt is:
The controversy has divided the Senate, caused strains in the commission, and provoked (1. public charges by industry officials that the banking chief is overreaching his authority and 2. private complaints that he is “reckless” and “stubborn.”). Now, we can see that the parallelism is in perfect play.

Kudos to Dom for spotting the correct choice.

i find this question flawed for the following reason :

the "causing of strain" and "proving of charges" are not separate events from the main event that is happening.
in a sentence such as : there was a traffic and i was late for work----> i effectively mean that "my being late for work" was NOT BECAUSE there was traffic BUT because of some other reason

SO when i am putting the sentence:The controversy has divided the Senate, 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.”
------> i am effectively meaning that "causing of strains in the commission"HAS nothing to do with the fact that "The controversy has divided the Senate"

IMO its E, because of the parallelism

If we check the last sentence, we are going to find out.
"and provoked PUBLIC CHARGES..... and PRIVATE COMPLAINTS...."

Choice A, B are out, because the ING makes the whole list a consequence of the division. But actually the list is all the problems that emerged with the controversy.

C is out because its not parallel

D is out because in any list, to make it parallel and clear, you have to finish with "AND" or "OR". Here we don't have any.

hi,
the correct way to read this would be..
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.” ..
provoked public charges.... and private complaints....