In contrast to environmentalists' proposals to limit emissions of cert

please let me know in D which include stands for what
restrictions ,call or proposal

Parallelizm : E is right (i think)
In contrast to requires Parallelizm
In contrast to X(proposal), Y (adminstration's proposal) would ...

why E not D, Although D is gramatically not flawed it is wordy. And .."...would cut ..." requires "would" after proposal (again they must be parallel Also it seems to me that "which" in D doesn't have a clear referent (it may be restrictions, propozal)
cheers

To me E looks the answer.

A --->incorrect comparison of environmental proposals with administration
B --->incorrect comparison of environmental proposals with administration
C---->incorrect comparison of environmental proposals with administration
D---->"which includes " means that pollutants are examples of restriction (restrictions in on pollutants )

which stands for restrictions

Hi balvinder,

Thank you for your question. Let's tackle this question one problem at a time, and we'll figure out how to get to the correct answer.

Whenever a sentence indicates a comparison or contrast, the first thing to look for is parallel structure between the 2+ things being compared or contrasted. This sentence starts with "In contrast..." so we know this is a good place to start. Let's look at what two things are being contrasted and determine if they're parallel:

A: environmentalist's proposals / administration
B: environmentalist's proposals / administration
C: environmentalist's proposals / administration
D: environmentalist's proposals / administration's proposal
E: environmentalist's proposals / administration's proposal

Answers D & E are the only ones that use parallel structure, so let's get rid of answers A, B, & C.

Here are the main differences between answers D & E:

D. administration’s proposal was a call for mandatory restrictions, which include
By saying "was a call," this indicates that the proposal called for these restrictions in the past, but may or may not call for them today. It may also confuse readers into thinking this proposal no longer exists. Therefore, this is an INCORRECT answer.

E. administration’s proposal would call for mandatory restrictions on
This is the CORRECT answer because it uses parallel format and uses the clearer verb "would call" to show what restrictions the proposal currently contains.

In contrast to environmentalists' proposals to limit emissions of certain pollutants, the administration proposed calling for mandatory restrictions of only three such pollutants from power plants-mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides-and the plan would delay such cuts until 2010 or later.

A. administration proposed calling for mandatory restriction of The "environmentalist's proposals" are being contrasted with "the administration", which is illogical. Eliminate.

B. administration proposed a call for mandatory restrictions, including those for Same error as (A). Eliminate.

C. administration, proposing mandatory restrictions on Same error as (A) & (B). Eliminate.

D. administration’s proposal was a call for mandatory restrictions, which include "which" refers to "restrictions", but the "restrictions" do not "include" the three pollutants. Eliminate.

E. administration’s proposal would call for mandatory restrictions on Correct answer. The correct entities are being contrasted (environmentalist's proposals and the administrations proposal) and no new error is introduced.

Hope this helps.

A. Comparing ' environmentalists’ proposals ' to the administration is incorrect.
B. Same as A
C. Same as A
D. 'which' here implies that the pollutants are examples if the restrictions. Parallelism missing -
'and the plans would' requires 'would call for' in the first part
E. Correct

In contrast to X ..., Y ... this usage builds on X and Y is comparable. so eliminate option ABC ;
and look for parallelism => proposal would call... and the plan would delay ... ;
further check option D, "which" refers to "restrictions", apparently, "restrictions only include three such pollutants..." doesn't make sense due to "restrictions" themselves is not chemical substances or combined pollutants.

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.