mialanknox
When a trader owns two options, the loss incurred
due to time erosion is greater than it would be due to a single-option strategy.A.
Due to time erosion is greater
than it would
be due to single-option strategy.
B.
By time erosion is greater
than that for a single-option strategy.
C.
For time erosion is greater
than for a single-option strategy.
D.
Because of time erosion is greater
than it would be because of a single-option strategy.
E.
Caused by time erosion is greater
compared to the loss for a single-option strategy.
A - (1)
Meaning issue: Usage of a preposition or prepositional phrase "due to" alters the intended meaning - Option A implies owning a single option is the CAUSE for the loss and it also equates "time erosion" and "single-option strategy". Incorrect.
B - (1)
Meaning issue: Usage of a preposition or prepositional phrase "by" alters the intended meaning - The construction "incurred by" is not used to indicate a cause-effect relationship. "Incurred by" should be followed by who or what has incurred the loss, in this case, the trader. Incorrect.
C - (1)
Meaning issue: Usage of a preposition or prepositional phrase "for" alters the intended meaning - Option C compares "time erosion" and "single-option strategy" and not the loss incurred when owning one or two options. Incorrect.
D - (1) Correct preposition used "Because of" - The intended meaning is clearly conveyed by this sentence - It implied that "time erosion" is the REASON for losses incurred when a trader owns two options.
E - (1)
Comparison issue: Usage of "than" vs "compared to" - because the comparative "greater" has been used, the sentence has to use "than". Incorrect.
Therefore,
option D is the correct answer.