Sentence Correction

Replacing the pronoun it in the given sentence with plural pronoun them, the sentence is as follows
can some one explain which of the options are correct or wrong based on following aspects

• 1. from home/their home to CW/reach CW
  2. despite having traveled vs even after traveling
  3.
  • therefore being free vs
    where they would now be free vs
    that offered freedom to roam vs
    where they could freely roam vs
    that would offer them freedom

The deer, despite having traveled hundreds of miles from their home to reach the Canadian wilderness and therefore being free to roam without fear of highway traffic or other man-made dangers, struggled to acclimate to the habitat that wildlife biologists had predicted would enable them to thrive.

(A) despite having traveled hundreds of miles from their home to reach the Canadian wilderness and therefore being free to roam without fear of highway traffic or other man-made dangers

(B) despite having traveled hundreds of miles from home to the Canadian wilderness where they would now be free to roam without fear of highway traffic or other man-made dangers

(C) despite having traveled hundreds of miles from home to reach the Canadian wilderness that offered freedom to roam without fear of highway traffic or other man-made dangers

(D) even after traveling hundreds of miles from their home to reach the Canadian wilderness where they could freely roam without fear of highway traffic or other man-made dangers

(E) who had traveled hundreds of miles from home to the Canadian wilderness that would offer them freedom to roam without fear of highway traffic or other man-made dangers

Mechmeera wrote:Replacing the pronoun it in [the second half of] the given sentence with plural pronoun them, the sentence [correction question becomes different,] as follows

Can someone explain which of the options are correct or wrong based on following aspects?

• 1. from home/their home to CW/reach CW
  2. despite having traveled vs even after traveling
  3.
  • therefore being free vs
    where they would now be free vs
    that offered freedom to roam vs
    where they could freely roam vs
    that would offer them freedom

While not all of my comments agree with the OA, here is what I see in the question should you change the singular it to the plural them.

1. The connotations of the word home are different from those of the expression their home. In this case, their home is better because that expression is similar to their original home or their environment.

1. When one says that one traveled to reach, one seems to be saying that one traveled in order to reach. I guess it makes more sense to say simply that the deer traveled to the Canadian wilderness, as the point of the sentence is not that they traveled in order to reach the wilderness, rather to make it clear that they moved a long distance from where they were originally to the wilderness.

2. Despite having traveled makes more sense here. The point is that they traveled, and despite their having done that, they did not do well. Saying that they even traveled is not as effective as even is more of a comparative term, or a term meant to indicate degree.

I was so interested in wearing just the right outfit that I even hired a consultant.

In this case, even is used to indicate that hiring a consultant is not common and is a part of a relatively serious project.

So even indicates a relative degree of something. The point of this sentence is not that the deer even traveled far. The point is that despite having traveled, they were having trouble acclimating.

3. Canadian wilderness that would offer them the freedom to roam seems to convey that there are multiple Canadian wildernesses and that possibly there another Canadian wilderness that would not offer them the freedom to roam. Also it is not the case that the Canadian wilderness would offer freedom to roam, but rather that it offers freedom to roam.

Canadian wilderness that offered freedom to roam has similar issues, and also the past tense, offered, seems to indicate that the Canadian wilderness no longer offers freedom to roam.

where they would now be free indicates that something is happening now, whereas they became free to roam in the past.

Canadian wilderness where they could freely roam would be better with a comma, making it Canadian wilderness, where they could freely roam. Without the comma, it conveys that there are multiple Canadian wildernesses, one of them in particular being the one where the deer could freely roam.

therefore being free seems to work pretty well.

When the it is changed to them, I find that the OA becomes A.