The lawyer for the defence charged that she suspected the police of having illegally taped her confidential conversations with her client and then used the information obtained to find evidence supporting their murder charges.
(A) used the information obtained to find evidence supporting
(B) used such information as they obtained to find evidence supporting
(C) used the information they had obtained to find evidence that would support
(D) of using the information they had obtained to find evidence that would support
(E) of using such information as they obtained to find evidence that would be supportive of
please explain two things here
meaning says :- lawyer suspected police of two things
1) having illegally taped confidential information
2) and then used that information to find evidence supporting..
official Ans says D. My concern here is
she is suspecting something , means she is not sure, so how come non underlined part is 100% and under lined part is with would, which is used for not certain things, are parallel.
If I consider it may be because we cannot doubt on non underlined part, but why C is wrong we can uses ellipses here to sho parallelism.
1) having illegally taped confidential information
2) and then (having )used that information to find evidence supporting..
please clarify