The logical approach to this structural problem IMO is this. The primary issue is the usage of correct idiom. Seem to be resistant involves an element of speculation, while seemingly are resistant is more declarative and definitive

In addition, this is a simple sentence that is modified by an absolute modifier of some advantage that modifies a noun idea of being resistance to a disease. It must be remembered that the absolute modifier is simply an additional info and not equal to the noun idea of resistance as such. Now let us see

A) Seem to be resistant to malaria, ….seem to be is the correct idiom and the absolute modifier is correctly placed, set off with a comma. The best choice.

(B) seemingly are resistant to malaria, …. Incorrect idiom

(C) seem to be resistant to malaria and have… use of an independent clause instead of the modifier phrase is wrong. The original text does not intend to give equality to the modifier.

(D) seemingly are resistant to malaria and to have…. Wrong idiom

(E) are, it seems, resistant to malaria, and they have… giving equality to modifier is wrong. ‘Seem to be resistant’ is not the same as ‘are, it seems, resistant’

_________________

People who inherit the sickle cell anemia gene from only one parent seem to be resistant to malaria, an evolutionary advantage that may explain why a genetic condition so debilitating to many individuals has survived in the human population

People who inherit the sickle cell anemia gene from only one parent => is the subject.
You can not consider
People who[strike]inherit the sickle cell anemia gene from only one parent[/strike]seem to be resistant to malaria,

How about this.

X seem to be resistant to malaria, and X have an evolutionary advantage that may explain why a genetic condition so debilitating to many individuals has survived in the human population.

where X = People who inherit the sickle cell anemia gene from only one parent

C IMO is not grammatically wrong. It is wrong only because it changes the meaning. So whichever option out of A and C is at position A should be marked as correct answer, as the intended meaning is always with the option A.
_________________

(B) and (D) are wrong because "seemingly" is an adverb that should modify resistant. And seem to be resistant is preferred.
(E) is too wrong. It provides are as verb for people then is modifier by a clause 'it seems' that is not correctly connected to the main clause.
(C) is not necessary

So A but I also want to hear what others think... Want to know if I understand things right

Posted from my mobile device

But won't the modifier "an evolutionary advantage..." modify malaria instead of modifying "...resistant to malaria"?

What can logically be an advantage- a disease or resistance to it?
_________________

'An evolutionary advantage' is indicating which one? 'Malaria' or 'Resistant to Malaria'?

I think it's indicating Malaria only.

Easy.

Resitance to malaria is "an evolutionary advantage" , the part after comma is a modifier, so C, D, E are gone

seem to be is correct idiom, so A is correct.
_________________

well 'an evolutionary advantage' is placed next to malaria and not next to resistance, so why should it modify resistance and not malaria ?

what am i missing here ?

Try to read it again but skip:
1. the word "malaria"
2 the word "resitance"

Think which sentence makes sense?

the correct one will sound as the original, the wrong will be an absolute absurd. (well, malaria could not be an advantage )
_________________

I don't think C is wrong at all.

The only reason why I would select A over C is..because A is correct too.

Since both implies different meanings, always go with the option A.

If the value of option C had been at the option A, I would have selected the option that is currently at C.
_________________

With a lot of respect to my colleague, I would disagree with that.

Let us read the sentence as follows:

People who [strike]inherit the sickle cell anemia gene from only one parent[/strike] seem to be resistant to malaria.
Resistance to malaria is an evolutionary advantage [strike]that may explain why a genetic condition so debilitating to many individuals has survived in the human population[/strike].

if you read it in C's way:

People who [strike]inherit the sickle cell anemia gene from only one parent[/strike] seem to be resistant to malaria and have an evolutionary advantage [strike]that may explain why a genetic condition so debilitating to many individuals has survived in the human population.[/strike]

In this case parts People who AND have evolutionary advantage - ARE NOT PARALLEL!

From the meaning of the sentence the stare of being resistant to malaria is an evolutionary advantage.

Why evolutionary?! because some people inherited the resitence from one of their parents.
_________________

Yes you are right! Agree with that, becuase both parts are parallel! X and X.

+1 kudos from me
_________________

Dear gurpreetsingh,
the 'X' thing is just awesome. I hope a big chunk of my SC problems will no more be there if I can properly use it. Thanks!
And, of course, +1 kudo!

A resistant to malaria ...is being referred

Hi all,

This is my 1st post here in this forum.
I can't understand why "Evolutionary advantage" is not modifying just Malaria.
If we say "People who seem to be resistant to specific medicine, an evolutionary advantage .....
So here, it would modify Specific medicine or resistant to specific medicine.

I am still confused.

Tks

The noun or noun-phrase after comma may not always modify the noun immediately preceding comma.

People who inherit the sickle cell anemia gene from only one parent seem to be resistant to malaria, an evolutionary advantage that may explain why a genetic condition so debilitating to many individuals has survived in the human population.

If we look at the sentence prior to the comma:
"People who inherit the sickle cell anemia gene from only one parent seem to be resistant to malaria."

This sentence itself is an independent clause. Guess it's also called adverbial phrase. Since, this statement before comma conveys an entire thought and contains subject/verb, it is not necessary for the noun that follows comma to modify the noun immediately preceding the comma.

"an evolutionary advantage" is the entire act of being resistant described in the previous sentence AND it properly modifies what it intends to.

Guys I just got it.

What is the evolutionary advantance is the Inheritance of the sickle cell anemia gene.

People who Inherit X from Y seem to be Z, an evolutionary advantage... (the second part of the sentence refers to a genetic condition) what further clarifies that is not refering to malaria.

Comments please.

577. People who inherit the sickle cell anemia gene from only one parent seem to be resistant to malaria, an evolutionary advantage that may explain why a genetic condition so debilitating to many individuals has survived in the human population.
(A) seem to be resistant to malaria,
(B) seemingly are resistant to malaria,
(C) seem to be resistant to malaria and have
(D) seemingly are resistant to malaria and to have
(E) are, it seems, resistant to malaria, and they have


'seemingly are' is wrong modifier. 'are seemingly resistant' is OK. So B and D out.
'An evolutionary advantage' is a modifier modifying the previous clause. So C and E out.
A remains.

Thanks for this brilliant explanation... But here is my doubt... Shouldn't the clause "an evolutionary advantage" come with , + FANBOYS since its an independent clause that modifies the previous clause?