Sentence Correction

Mo2men wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:

gocoder wrote:Can E be wrong because the idea of the 'with' clause[17% decline in the next half of the centtury] is not contemporaneous with that of main clause that 'Japan's population is shrinking faster', a statement that is a fact/based in present tense ?

This line of reasoning is valid.

Dear Mitch,

1 -Can you please shed light why the line of reasoning above is correct?

How is the the population is shrinking?

It is shrinking..........., WITH projected..... ?

Generally, COMMA + with after a clause should serve to introduce something that accompanies the preceding action.
In E, the usage of COMMA + with implies that a decline DURING THE NEXT CENTURY is accompanying an action in the PRESENT (Japan's population IS shrinking).
This sequence is illogical.

I think it correct to use 'comma +with' even with progressive verb. How do you analyze this issue? Do you restrict using it with present progressive verbs?Please note that my question do not consider the redundancy problem you highlighted earlier.

A past participle (VERBed) may be included in a COMMA + with modifier.
Offhand, I cannot cite an official example.
It is far more common on the GMAT for COMMA + with to include a present participle (VERBing).

2- I can see that many experts in this posts have different in the above issue.

The end of the eighteenth century saw the emergence of prize-stock breeding, with individual bulls and cows receiving awards, fetching unprecedented prices, and exciting enormous interest whenever they were put on show.
With nearly 20,000 people in attendance, the event had an amazing turnout.
With only hope motivating her, she decided to carry out a search for the lost boy.

In each of these examples, COMMA + with serves to introduce something that accompanies -- and is concurrent with -- the main action.
Option E in the SC above does not satisfy this constraint.

Is there any clear cut why E is wrong? Does 'projected decline at' idiomatic?

projected at is unidiomatic.
Aside from this idiom error, E can be eliminated because of the error of redundancy cited in my post above (shrinking...with a decline) and because of the illogical sequence conveyed by the with-modifier.