SOURCE : MGMAT CAT Pests had destroyed grape, celery, chili

B

A- has parellism issue. Crops,
B - paellism corrected
c - Wordy
D - chanhed the meaning by changing the event of ocurence.
E - what is illogically referiing to pest control, it is suppose to refer pests, but pests were no where mentioned.

B is structurally correct, but does not make sense logically. I do not find any error in E. Can anyone throw lights on it?

I guess, the original sentence intends to say that Pests had already destroyed the crops before pest-control methods saved the citrus industry.

In E, the way it is written it means, the pests were still destroying the crops while the pest-control methods saved the citrus industry.

Not sure.

Amit, do you also have OE? I am kind of getting at what you say, and also want to see what OE says.

MGMAT OE :

This sentence has poor parallelism, due to the placement of the word “crops.” It seems to indicate that there were three types of crops (grape, celery and chili pepper) that had been destroyed, but that sugar beet and walnut had been destroyed entirely, rather than just the crops of those plants.

(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.

(B) CORRECT. The word “crop” is placed correctly after the list of crop types.
The modifier “in the 1880s” correctly modifies the last phrase in the sentence, indicating only that the citrus industry was saved in the 1880s. By using the past perfect “had destroyed,” this sentence indicates that the other crops had been destroyed at some time prior to the 1880s. The later past event uses the simple past tense, whereas the earlier past event uses the past perfect tense. This time line of events matches the meaning in the original sentence.

(C) The modifying phrase “that were introduced in the 1880s” refers to the “methods” immediately preceding the phrase. This alters the meaning of the sentence, since “in the 1880s” no longer modifies “saved the citrus industry. The simple past tense indicates “saved” happened sometime in the past, but not necessarily in that particular decade. The modifier uses the relative pronoun “that,” but “that” should only introduce essential modifiers. “Which” is a better choice here, since the modifying phrase is non-essential.

(D) The placement of the modifier “In the 1880s” and the use of two simple past verbs “destroyed” and “saved,” indicate that both occurred in that decade. The original sentence indicates only that the citrus industry was saved in the 1880s, and by using the past perfect “had destroyed” indicates that the other crops had been destroyed at some time prior to the 1880s. The original sentence used the word “but” to indicate a contrast, yet this sentence alters the meaning by using “and” instead.

(E) The use of the phrase “what was destroying” is an awkward way to refer to “pests.” Also, the placement of the modifier “In the 1880s” and the use of the past progressive “was destroying” indicates that the destruction was ongoing in that decade. The original sentence indicates only that the citrus industry was saved in the 1880s, and by using the past perfect “had destroyed” indicates that the other crops had been destroyed at some time prior to the 1880s.

Thanks Amit for the OE. This explains how the meaning changes in E.