A) wagons, with high wheels capable of crossing rutted roads, muddy flats, and the nonroads of the prairie and they had a floor curved upward on either end so as to prevent

with high wheels is a modifier, but it is paired, via and, with a clause, they had a floor ...

B) wagons, with high wheels capable of crossing rutted roads, muddy flats, and the nonroads of the prairie, and with a floor that was curved upward at both ends to prevent

In this version, there is no clause at all.

C) wagons, which had high wheels capable of crossing rutted roads, muddy flats, and the nonroads of the prairie and floors curved upward on either ends so that they prevented

There is no clause in this one either, unless you consider floors curved upward on either ends a clause, in which case the entire thing still does not make sense anyway.

D) wagons had high wheels capable of crossing rutted roads, muddy flats, and the nonroads of the prairie, and a floor that was curved upward at both ends to prevent

This one basically works. There is a clause, Conestoga wagons had high wheels ... and a floor, that is modified in various ways.

That having been said, a floor does not really match Conestoga wagons. floor should be floors, to match the plural wagons. The wagons had floors.

E) wagons had high wheels capable of crossing rutted roads, muddy flats, and the nonroads of the prairie and floors curving upward at their end so that it prevented

In this one floors is correctly plural, but now end is incorrectly singular, and it refers to nothing.

So I guess that, while answer D is flawed, it is the best of the bunch.

Hi Marty ,

Many thanks for your reply, but still I don't understand the reasons to eliminate the options, my bad.

SJ

jain2016 wrote:Developed by Pennsylvania's Palatine Germans about 1750, Conestoga wagons, with high wheels capable of crossing rutted roads, muddy flats, and the nonroads of the prairie and they had a floor curved upward on either end so as to prevent cargo from shifting on steep grades.

A) wagons, with high wheels capable of crossing rutted roads, muddy flats, and the nonroads of the prairie and they had a floor curved upward on either end so as to prevent

B) wagons, with high wheels capable of crossing rutted roads, muddy flats, and the nonroads of the prairie, and with a floor that was curved upward at both ends to prevent

C) wagons, which had high wheels capable of crossing rutted roads, muddy flats, and the nonroads of the prairie and floors curved upward on either ends so that they prevented

D) wagons had high wheels capable of crossing rutted roads, muddy flats, and the nonroads of the prairie, and floor that was curved upward at both ends to prevent

E) wagons had high wheels capable of crossing rutted roads, muddy flats, and the nonroads of the prairie and floors curving upward at their end so that it prevented

OAD

Hi Experts ,

Please explain each options.

Many thanks in advance.

SJ

Marty's point is that options A, B, C, either lack a central clause, or use a coordinating conjunction to pair a clause with a modifier.

Look at A: Developed by Pennsylvania's Palatine Germans about 1750, Conestoga wagons, with high wheels capable of crossing rutted roads, muddy flats, and the nonroads of the prairie and they had a floor curved upward on either end so as to prevent cargo from shifting on steep grades.

The portion in blue is an independent clause. Because it is linked to the rest of the sentence with the coordinating conjunction "and" it should be preceded by another independent clause. Now look at the first part of A, without the aforementioned clause.

Developed by Pennsylvania's Palatine Germans about 1750, Conestoga wagons, with high wheels capable of crossing rutted roads, muddy flats, and the nonroads of the prairie

In order to be correct, this portion should contain an independent clause. The portions in red are modifying "conestoga wagons." So all we have here is the subject "Conestoga wagons," and a bunch of modifiers. There's no verb, and therefore, no clause. This is incorrect.

Now look at B: Developed by Pennsylvania's Palatine Germans about 1750 , Conestoga wagons, with high wheels capable of crossing rutted roads, muddy flats, and the nonroads of the prairie, and with a floor that was curved upward at both ends to prevent cargo from shifting on steep grades

Again, the portions in red are modifying "Conestoga wagons." There is no main verb, so there is no independent clause.

And C: Developed by Pennsylvania's Palatine Germans about 1750, Conestoga wagons, which had high wheels capable of crossing rutted roads, muddy flats, and the nonroads of the prairie and floors curved upward on either ends so that they prevented cargo from shifting on steep grades

Again, the blue portion represents an independent clause, linked to the rest of the sentence with the coordinating conjunction "and." So it should be preceded by an independent clause. However, this is the first portion of the sentence:

Developed by Pennsylvania's Palatine Germans about 1750, Conestoga wagons, which had high wheels capable of crossing rutted roads, muddy flats,

The portions in red are modifying "Conestoga wagons" so again, no clause.

(And in E, as Marty point out, "it" has no referent.")

Just as an aside, I don't think D is quite clear enough to qualify as the OA for an official question, though it is the least bad of this particular bunch.