The Lisbon treaty, ill-fated European Union constitution's

Can B as an answer challenged ? i might be wrong , but i think we can term B as given below

B) successor to the ill-fated European Union constitution, which in turn followed the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties

Followed Maastricht
Followed Amsterdam
Followed Nice treaties ( treaties may refer to more then one treaty of Nice)

Can anyone comment ?

nice explanation yossarian84. Kudos to you

I agree with you , this answer looks debatable and i would like to know the source of this question

) ill-fated European Union constitution's successor, which in turn followed the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties ---> Check possesive - Out A

B) successor to the ill-fated European Union constitution, which in turn followed the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties

C) successor to the ill-fated European Union constitution, that in turn followed the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties --> THAT is incorrectly placed

D) successor to the ill-fated European Union constitution, which in turn followed the Maastricht treaty, Amsterdam treaty and Nice treaty --> NOTICE Maastricht treaty ....this is OUT

E) successor to the ill-fated European Union constitution, which in turn followed the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaty --NOTICE Amsterdam and Nice treaty ......this is OUT

Added color and bold for emphasis.
Without reading this article in The Economist, how can we clearly discern what the "which in turn followed the X, Y and Z treaties" is supposed to modify?
A) The Lisbon Treaty was the ill-fated EU Constitution's successor. The successor was in turn followed by X, Y and Z treaties.
B) The Lisbon Treaty was the successor to the ill-fated EU Constitution. The EU Constitution was in turn followed by X, Y and Z treaties.

Understanding the author's intended meaning can make the elimination process easier.
The author's intended meaning is as follows: The Lisbon treaty followed the European Union constitution and the European Union constitution itself followed the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties.

Between A & the rest:
If you get rid of the two modifiers, you have a simple sentence to begin with: "The Lisbon treaty would create a permanent club (EU's) rulebook".
Since the focus of the sentence is on the Lisbon Treaty not the constitution or the other treaties, you should bring "successor" closer to the Lisbon Treaty to describe it in the beginning of the first modifier.
Otherwise, it is not clear if "ill-fated" describes the Lisbon Treaty - the successor or the EU constitution, as in the case of (A). So (A) is wrong.

Between C & B,D, and E:
The presence of the word "in turn" suggests that the author wants to describe "the ill-fated European Union constitution" itself by the following modifier.

(B),(D), and (E) use the correct pronoun "which" to connect the noun closest to it, "the ill-fated European Union constitution" with its description "It followed or succeeded the three older treaties".
It is grammatically correct to use "which" since these treaties are unique and the additional pieces of information contained in the modifiers are non-essential.

(C) uses the wrong pronoun "that", which mistakenly refers to the Lisbon Treaty, implying that the Lisbon Treaty directly followed the older treaties, with nothing in between. So (C) is out.

Between B & D, and E:
(E) is clearly wrong for using singular form of the word "treaty" to refer to three treaties.
(D) is wrong for redundant use of "treaty".
(B) is more efficient than (D) for its use of "treaties".

sayantanc2k can you please provide an explanation for this question.
My confusion is regarding" Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties "

My undertstanding is that when we have a list of similar items they follow this construction X,Y,and Z treaty
where the word treaty can be put in the end instead of repeating.
Now here x,Y and Z means that y,z are parallel and X is parallel to y and Z.
So in this way if we remove Y and Z the list reads as X treaties.
How do we evaluate in this context what is right treaties or treaty.

goforgmat:

You are asking why it is not E. Here is the answer.

Your choice E implies that there was one "X,Y,Z" treaty. Sort of like a bundle. That is wrong because that is not the intended meaning of the author. The author meant to say there were three treaties. So you have to say "X,Y,Z treaties". How do I know this? I know this from the original sentence. Original sentence says there were three treaties. It also starts with a treaty named after one city. So you can infer that a treaty is named after one city but not multiple cities. Clear ?

For me, paying more attention to the original sentence to understand the intended meaning is really paying off. I encourage you to do that too. GL.

It's not possible to use a singular word like "treaty" to make different nouns with several different modifiers. If we want to talk about more than one thing, we always need a plural noun. A few examples:

The first, second, and third place winners are awarded gold, silver, and bronze medals, respectively. (Notice that even though there is only one winner and one medal in each category, we still use the plural noun.)

I tried the chocolate, caramel, and coffee varieties.

The Swedish, Finnish, and Norwegian governments were all parties to the agreement.

The underlining of the question is not proper. The questions shows the comma is underlined but its not the case.

Corrected; thank you for pointing out.

A) ill-fated European Union constitution's successor, which in turn followed the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties. 'which' must modify 'ill fated European constitution' and not 'constitution's successor'

B) successor to the ill-fated European Union constitution, which in turn followed the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties. Correct Choice

C) successor to the ill-fated European Union constitution, that in turn followed the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties. That preceded by ','

D) successor to the ill-fated European Union constitution, which in turn followed the Maastricht treaty, Amsterdam treaty and Nice treaty. 'treaty' is mentioned three times and that is not required.

E) successor to the ill-fated European Union constitution, which in turn followed the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaty. need plural 'treaties'

The way the sentence is written, those 3 should be comprehended as treaties.

Similar examples: the one-dollar, two-dollar, and five-dollar bills.

Can't understand how B is the answer. I agree that it looks better than other choices, but shouldn't there be a comma after Amsterdam?

Can sum1 pls explain what is the difference between the use of which and [,which] ?

is it not that [,which] is for the whole sentence before the comma and which is for the word before which ?

The Oxford comma is not mandatory.

No, the point you made is applicable for present participle (verb-ing) modifiers only.

"Which" is a relative pronoun, and therefore must refer to a noun antecedent; "which" can NEVER refer to a clause.

(You may find the following post about present participle modifiers useful:
verb-ed-modifiers-vs-verb-ing-modifiers-125611-60.html#p1712612 )