The first split at the end
"it was" vs "being" does not really help me a lot as I start feeling uncomfortable while rejecting "being"
So, let's search for a better reason for POE. If someone could elaborate on incorrect (?) usage of "being" here, highly appreciate!
(A) A motion filed by the prosecution has been reviewed by a panel of judges, ruling that the evidence cannot be used in the trial because it was
-
meaning is not clear so I start looking for better option(B) A motion filed by the prosecution has been reviewed by a panel of judges, and they rule that the evidence cannot be used in the trial because of being -
plural pronoun "they" cannot refer to a singular antecedent ("a panel of judges"). The choice is wrong for good reason(C) After reviewing a motion filed by the prosecution, a panel of judges rules that the evidence cannot be used in the trial because it was -
this choice looks good to me; meaning is more clear than in the option (A) (D) After reviewing a motion, filed by the prosecution, a panel of judges rules the evidence cannot be used in the trial because of being -
missing that is not allowed on GMAT (just re-call this principle a few days ago while looking to Manhattan SC) so this option is out(E) After a motion filed by the prosecution was reviewed by a panel of judges, who rule that the evidence cannot be used in the trial because it was -
this option is a sentence fragment, the sentence lacks a main clause. Another reason is a small shift in meaning: "it is a panel who rules" not "the individual judges who rule" (but I am not 100% sure that this is perfect reason for POE; absence of a main clause looks better for me)