Let's watch out the role of "along with no clear monetary policy"
Did Civil unrest contribute to no clear monetary policy? - Certainly not.
The problem has the case of, what we call "misplaced modifier".
X,contributed to Y, along with Z => implies that Y and Z are together.
X, along with Z, contributed to Y => implies that X and Z together contributed to Y. "along with" acts as a modifier and not an additive.
Hence, it does not change the count of the subject , to which it's applied. A) There was civil unrest, which contributed to the instability of the nation's economy,
along with no clear monetary policy.Incorrect because of the above reason.B) Contributing to the instability of the nation's economy
was civil unrest and no clear monetary policy.
S-V disagreement.
C) The absence of a clear monetary policy and civil unrest contributed to the instability of the nation's economy.
The absence of civil unrest contributed to the instability?? - NoD) Civil unrest contributed to the nation's economic instability, and
so did the absence of a clear monetary policy.
No grammatical error.
X did, and so did Y. i.e. X and Y did (Note the equal emphasis on both X and Y)
However, the actual sentence intends to say : X along with Y did (more emphasis on X and "along with Y" is just the modifier to X). E) Civil unrest, along with the absence of a clear monetary policy, contributed to the instability of the nation's economy.
No grammatical error. I absolutely agree that if a sentence is completely underlined, we CAN'T anticipate the intended meaning of the sentence to pick a choice, and the grammar only is the weapon we have.
But, I have seen many problems,in which we have to make the decision based on the "intended" meaning of the actual sentence even if it's fully underlined.
I am not sure if all of them are official ones.
With the same experience, I would pick E as it aligns with what is intended by choice A (the actual one).
IMO
E