During the 1980s it became clear that soliciting private funds was far

A) soliciting private funds is not || to 'to go to state'
B) || ism is followed. (semms correct).
C) sentence is awkward and wordy. (private organizations were far more efficient to go to than to go to state or federal agencies)
D) Using for is not correct is this sentence. This sentence seems to be incomplete. (During the 1980s it became clear for environmentalists seeking financial aid, going to private organizations was far more efficient). 'that' is required to complete the sentence.
E) Same reason as D.

IMO B.

People please comment on the explanation as I am not that sure.

Another B.

(A) that soliciting private funds was far more efficient for environmentalists who sought financial aid "gerund and infinitive in parallelism"
(B) that for environmentalists who sought financial aid, it was far more efficient to solicit private funds
(C) that for environmentalists seeking financial aid, private organizations were far more efficient to go to "changes meaning"
(D) for environmentalists seeking financial aid, going to private organizations was far more efficient "similar issue as in A"
(E) for environmentalists who sought financial aid, private organizations were far more efficient[/quote] "issue of parallelism"

"issue of parallelism"[/quote]

Agree, will go for (B) also.

A - When I read A, I kind of expected this pattern - X was far more efficient FOR A......than FOR B. But I don't see that pattern.--Out
B - It = To Solicit...etc ; To Solicit parallel with to go to --- Good
C - X were far more efficient to go to than to go to Y (awkward)
Should have been - To go to X was far more efficient than to go to. ---Out
D - It became clear for X THAT going to .....etc. But THAT is missing.
Also, "GOING" to X was far more efficient than "TO GO TO" . You can see the parallelism error. Should have been Going to X was far more efficient than Going to Y. ----Out
E - Comparison error. Organizations are compared with the action of going.
"Private organizations" more efficient than "to go to". ---Out
B Wins

During the 1980s it became clear that soliciting private funds was far more efficient for environmentalists who sought financial aid than to go to state or federal agencies.
(A) that soliciting private funds was far more efficient for environmentalists who sought financial aid
(B) that for environmentalists who sought financial aid, it was far more efficient to solicit private funds
(C) that for environmentalists seeking financial aid, private organizations were far more efficient to go to
(D) for environmentalists seeking financial aid, going to private organizations was far more efficient
(E) for environmentalists who sought financial aid, private organizations were far more efficient

OA is B.

The key to comparison questions is parallelism and entities being compared.
Always pick out the entities being compared and check whether both the entities can be ompared

C is wrong because it is comparing pvt equity(noun) with "to go to" (verb)

Let me try to explain this one. Ok, here we go.
First of all. We need clear THAT. So D and E are out ROTB. Now, let's check out ABC, mind you? So first take a look at the off-phrase. It seems as we are making a comparison here. So we want it to be parallel right? So this part environentalists who sought financial aid should be in the front, and then have the other part of the sentence later so the comparison can be more appropiately? Do I explain myself clearly?
Check out answer chouce B, that for the E who sought FA, it was far more eff to SPV than to go. Here in bold is the parallelism we want. Note that the first part was taken out of the way.
So here B is our right answer

Hope it helps
Make some Kudos rain if you liked it

Cheers
J

Official Explanation:

The underlined portion of the sentence contains the comparison word more, so check to make sure that the items being compared are similar. The comparison is between the verbs soliciting and to appeal, which are not in the same form, so this is a parallel construction error. Eliminate choice A and look for obvious repeaters. Because none of the other answer choices use the word soliciting, there are no obvious repeaters. Evaluate the remaining answer choices individually, looking for reasons to eliminate each.

Choice B fixes the original error by making the verbs being compared to solicit and to appeal, and introduces no new errors, so keep choice B. Choice C does not repeat the same comparison error, but still incorrectly compares private organizations to to appeal to state or federal agencies. Eliminate choice C. Choice D incorrectly compares the verbs going to with to appeal, which are not parallel, so eliminate choice D. Choice E incorrectly compares private organizations to to appeal to state or federal agencies. Eliminate choice E.

Choice A: No. The elements of the comparison, soliciting and to appeal, are not parallel. Comparison.

Choice B: Correct.

Choice C: No. Private organizations is incorrectly compared to to appeal to state of federal agencies. Comparison.

Choice D: No. The elements of the comparison, going to and to appeal, are not parallel. Comparison.

Choice E: No. Private organizations is incorrectly compared to to appeal to state of federal agencies. Comparison.

The correct answer is choice B.

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.