All right, people, let’s knock this one out. I managed it in 1:00, so that would probably be a comfortable 1:20 on an actual exam. The things to note here is where an adverb should be located and the subjunctive mood (yeah, not a fan of technical language myself).
Let’s start.
While many politicians have been able to abuse recent changes in the law, the original spirit of the bill was that it was equally applied to all residents, no matter their socio-economic status.
A) that it was equally applied to all residents, no matter their socio-economic status
What does “it” refer to here, people? And while you mull that over recognize that this sentence needs a subjunctive structure. The WAS jumped out at me pretty early on. We need a BE. If this is all foreign to you check the following link out ---
https://magoosh.com/gmat/verbal/grammar ... ive-tense/.
B) that it was to be applied equally to all residents, no matter their socio-economic status
Two things to note: First is the WAS TO BE. I would prefer a simple BE alone. The second is APPLIED EQUALLY. The adverb should preferably come before the verb. Yellow flag this just in case.
C) that it was equally applied to all residents, and their socio-economic status did not matter
There is no BE. But even if we forgive that, the second part, “, and their socio-economic status did not matter” is disjointed. It’s like writing: There is a cat in the room, and the homeowner likes writing.
D) that it be applied equally to every resident, no matter their socio-economic status
We have the BE. But the adverb is before the verb. Not bad. This is my second choice.
E) that it be equally applied to all residents, no matter their socio-economic status
No issues here. The BE is there. The adverb comes before the verb. The last part is connected.