lunarpower wrote:

<=== This is wrong as Present Progressive sentence correction does not make sense to specify a general outcome of certain action. @Ron, somehow I am not convinced with rejecting this option based on comma - I think bigger issue, in my opinion, is how to specify a GENERAL OUTCOME. Please correct me.

i don't understand what you are asking here.

so, here's a fuller discussion of that answer choice.
basically, the problem with that choice is that you can interpret it in two ways - and both are wrong.

* you could interpret it as a list of three parallel things (= three conditions that need to be maintained).
that's the correct interpretation meaning-wise, but it's not parallel - the -INGs aren't parallel to "cool".

* you could interpret it as a modifier, but then you've got two issues:
1/ you can't use a comma to separate "x and y";
2/ this doesn't make any sense as a modifier, because the way in which the cows are fed and milked doesn't describe, in any sensible way, the idea of keeping them cool.

so, with this choice you lose either way.

lunarpower wrote:

@Ron, I would like to learn in what cases such past-participle based noun phrases are better stylistically. I am sure there are tons of learning here.

"stylistic" considerations are not tested on this exam; every wrong answer will have objectively incorrect grammar, a nonsense meaning, or both.

ugly. very ugly. but (e) is the least ugly of the bunch, so it wins the proverbial pageant.
i would much prefer "keep them cool, provide them with..., and milk them...", but that isn't there, of course.

lunarpower wrote:ugly, ugly, ugly.
ugly.

heh. it looks like choice (a) is an "indian trap"
seriously, not a joke.
if there is a single biggest issue in the grammar of second-language english speakers who happen to hail from india or pakistan, that issue is the drastic overuse of the "are ...ing" construction. (native speakers of english will recognize "are producing" at once as awkward.)

another problem with part (a) is the modifier. although "providing... and milking..." is a grammatically acceptable modifier, it doesn't make any sense in context, since these are not two things that farmers do WHILE or AS A CONSEQUENCE OF keeping the cows cool. (if you're going to use comma + -ing, then one of these two should hold.)
see #124 (og 12th edition) or #127 (og 11th edition), correct answer, for a sentence in which such a modifier actually does make sense.

the official answer, (e), is tricky indeed.

you have to parse it as follows:
you KEEP THE COWS cool
you KEEP THE COWS provided with...
and you KEEP THE COWS milked regularly

ugly. very ugly. but (e) is the least ugly of the bunch, so it wins the proverbial pageant.
i would much prefer "keep them cool, provide them with..., and milk them...", but that isn't there, of course.

--

note that you also can't say "THE holstein cows", unless you're referencing a particular, specific, known group of holstein cows (something that you clearly aren't doing). since you're talking about holstein cows in general, you don't use the article "the".
this is another thing well known, totally subconsciously, to native speakers of english; it's hard-won wisdom for non-native speakers.