VodkaHelps
The presence of both plant impressions and phytoliths led
researchers analyzing soil in and around Mesolithic graves in Israel to conclude there was habitual use of plants, and particularly of flowering and aromatic varieties, in the rituals associated with burial of the dead at Raqefet.A.researchers analyzing soil in and around Mesolithic graves in Israel to conclude there was habitual use of plants, and particularly of flowering and aromatic varieties, in the rituals associated with burial of the dead at Raqefet
B. researchers who would analyze soil in and around Mesolithic graves in Israel to conclude there had been habitual use of plants, and particularly flowering and aromatic varieties, in the rituals in association with burial of the dead at Raqefet
C. researchers who had analyzed soil in and around Mesolithic graves in Israel to conclude that in the rituals associated with burial of the dead in Raqafet, there had been habitual plant use, and particularly flowering and aromatic varieties
D. researchers, analyzing soil in and around Mesolithic graves in Israel to conclude there was habitual use of plants in the rituals associated with burial of the dead at Raqefet, and particularly of flowering and aromatic varieties
E. researchers analyzing soil in and around Mesolithic graves in Israel in concluding particularly flowering and aromatic varieties of plants were in habitual use in the rituals associated with burial of the dead at Raqefet
The presence of both plant impressions and phytoliths led researchers analyzing soil in and around Mesolithic graves in Israel to conclude there was habitual use of plants,
and particularly of flowering and aromatic varieties, in the rituals associated with burial of the dead at Raqefet. For now I dont see anything wrong with the sentence just yet, hence let me have a look at others:
B. researchers
who would analyze soil in and around Mesolithic graves in Israel to conclude
there had been habitual use of plants, and particularly flowering and aromatic varieties, in the rituals in association with burial of the dead at Raqefet => huh? who would, there had been? so weird
C. researchers
who had analyzed soil in and around Mesolithic graves in Israel to conclude that in the rituals associated with burial of the dead in Raqafet, there had been habitual plant use, and particularly flowering and aromatic varieties => there was no two actions for the past participle tense to be correct. I think the correct use of who in this case should be 'the presence...led researchers who analyzed... to conclude' and this can be rewritten as 'the presence... led researchers analyzing... (who analyzed = analyzing)
D. researchers, analyzing soil in and around Mesolithic graves in Israel to conclude there was habitual use of plants in the rituals associated with burial of the dead at Raqefet, and particularly of flowering and aromatic varieties => error in use of Ving + comma, which generally modifies for the preceding clause. Plus the placement of "and particularly of flowering and aromatic varieties" is confusing
E. researchers analyzing soil in and around Mesolithic graves in Israel
in concluding particularly flowering and aromatic varieties of plants were in habitual use in the rituals associated with burial of the dead at Raqefet => unidiomatic, led to is correct, plus in GMAT the rule is to use to verb rather than preposition + Ving (if I remember it correctly