Here's the
official explanation provided by the GMAC for this question:
This sentence describes effects an expected rise in the price of oil could have on industrialized nations. When the noun
impact is used to mean a strong effect, rather than a physical blow, it is conventionally followed by the preposition
on, not
to. And the noun
possibility is conventionally followed by a prepositional phrase starting with
of or by a subordinate clause, not by a verb in the infinitive.
Option A: In this context, using the noun
impact with the preposition
to violates the conventions of English diction. So does using the noun
possibility with the infinitive
to have.Option B: The phrasal verb
impact on is not widely accepted in formal English. The phrase
impede the possibility makes no sense, because
to impede means "to slow the progress of," and a possibility is not something that progresses. Using the noun
possibility with the infinitive
to have violates the conventions of English diction
.Option C: The phrasal verb
impact on is not widely accepted in formal English. The phrase
impede the possibility makes no sense, because
to impede means "to slow the progress of," and a possibility is not something that progresses.
Option D: The phrase
impede the possibility makes no sense, because
to impede means "to slow the progress of," and a possibility is not something that progresses. Using the noun
possibility with the infinitive
to have violates the conventions of English diction
.Option E: Correct. The noun
impact is appropriately used with the preposition
on; the phrase
diminish the possibility makes sense because a possibility can be increased or diminished; and the noun
possibility is appropriately followed by the prepositional phrase
of having an economy free of inflation.
The correct answer is E.
Please note that I'm not the author of this explanation. I'm just posting it here since I believe it can help the community.