Suneha123 wrote:
GMATNinja, I marked the correct choice as it is conveying the meaning in a concise way but wanted to check what can be the concrete reasons to eliminate other options. I feel other options are not conveying the meaning properly but couldn't find any grammatical error as such. Can you please throw some light here?
daagh has already mentioned a great trick to spot the correct answer.
Though I'll add few more points for your
Suneha123 clarity:
According to a ruling by the state supreme court, the owner of polluted land is liable for the cleanup of the property even if the owner did not have the responsibility that pollution occurred before the title changed hands.
(A) the owner did not have the responsibility that pollution
(B) the owner is not responsible for pollution that
(C) it was not the owner’s responsibility that pollution would have
(D) the responsibility of the owner is not that pollution
(E) the responsibility was not the owner’s that pollution would have
"would and should" must not be used in the "if" clause. Hence (C) and (E) are eliminated.
Option (D) is wordy and Passive and Awkward. " the responsibility of the owner" can be written in Active form "the owner is not responsible". It is Awkward because "responsibility...is not that".
Option (A) can be eliminated for it being awkwardly wordy "did not have the responsibility". This can be simply put as "is not responsible".
Hope this helps