umeshpatil wrote:As its sales of computer products have surpassed those of measuring instruments, the company has become increasingly willing to compete for the mass market sales they would in the past have conceded to rivals.
A they would in the past have conceded to rivals.
B they would have conceded previously to their rivals
C that in the past would have been conceded previously to rivals
D it previously would have conceded to rivals in the past
E it would in the past have conceded to rivals

they would in the past have conceded to rivals

is a meaningful sentence. There is no punctuation or conjunction to join it with previous part. It seems it is not connected with rest of the sentence properly. Can anyone explain how this is correct?

[spoiler]OA: E[/spoiler]

Dear umeshpatil,

I'm happy to help.

First of all, here's a lesson about run-on sentences:
https://gmat.magoosh.com/lessons/916-run-on-sentences

Here's version (E), the OA:
As its sales of computer products have surpassed those of measuring instruments, the company has become increasingly willing to compete for the mass market sales it would in the past have conceded to rivals.

What this sentence does is omit an implicit "that" --- here's the sentence again with the implied word included:
As its sales of computer products have surpassed those of measuring instruments, the company has become increasingly willing to compete for the mass market sales that it would in the past have conceded to rivals.
Folks omit the word "that" all the time in colloquial speech, but usually the GMAT is above this sort of behavior. It's a bit funny to see it in an official question --- I believe this is one that did not survive into the OG13, so perhaps they became uncomfortable with its relative informality.

What you cite is not actually an independent clause, but really part of a subordinate clause, a clause beginning with "that" and modifying the noun "market sales".

Does all this make sense?
Mike