Sentence Correction

hi guys
this problem was discussed not once, but i did not find the answer on my particular question
i readily admit that the problem tests ||-ism, but i can`t understand why
[spoiler]proposed........ to maintain .......and to subsidize in A is better then
propose to reduce.........and to subsidize in C
it will be great that somebody helps me with this problem
may be some other issues exist that i am missing
also og says nothing about ....year that was allocated....in C as misplaced modifier,perhaps it is exception of the touch rule that states that noun modifier must touch noun it modifies, but not sure [/spoiler]
thanks
Faced with an estimated $2 billion budget gap, the city's mayor proposed a nearly 17 percent reduction in the amount allocated the previous year to maintain the city's major cultural institutions and to subsidize hundreds of local arts groups.
(A) proposed a nearly 17 percent reduction in the amount allocated the previous year to maintain the city's major cultural institutions and to subsidize
(B) proposed a reduction from the previous year of nearly 17 percent in the amount it was allocating to maintain the city's major cultural institutions and for subsidizing
(C) proposed to reduce, by nearly 17 percent, the amount from the previous year that was allocated for the maintenance of the city's major cultural institutions and to subsidize
(D) has proposed a reduction from the previous year of nearly 17 percent of the amount it was allocating for maintaining the city's major cultural institutions, and to subsidize
(E) was proposing that the amount they were allocating be reduced by nearly 17 percent from the previous year for maintaining the city's major cultural institutions and for the subsidization
oa is A

let me give a try here:

Option B - amount it was allocating - what does it refer to? it cannot be city as it is a possessive case here.also the the parallelsim case a su mentioned.
Option C - the modofier is put off in commas which would make it a non-essential one. is that the case here? according to the original sentence its not. also i dont think its a noun modifier, so the touch rule wont apply here. correct me if im wrong.
parallelism again violated here too.
D-reduction of is not a correct idiom, shud be reduction in. again 'it' causes ambiguity here.
E-not only awkward,unparallel but also pronoun error, what does they refer to?

does it help?

even i'm struggling with C

(A) proposed a nearly 17 percent reduction in the amount allocated the previous year to maintain the city's major cultural institutions and to subsidize

(C) proposed to reduce, by nearly 17 percent, the amount from the previous year that was allocated for the maintenance of the city's major cultural institutions and to subsidize


IMO A.

Let's give it a try.
A vs C
The city mayor proposed ONLY ONE thing.
17% reduction in the amount.
This reduction will do two things.
to maintain .... and to subsidize ....

It is not that mayor proposed two things,
to reduce .... and to maintain

also, in C, I have issue with COMMA + by nearly 17 percent + COMMA
Is it acting like an appositive?
If yes, it is modifying reduce. But it is wrong, it should modify the amount.
But I need experts comment here.

Good Q. Initially I was confused between A and C, but when I separated the // part, it made more sense.

(A)
Faced with an estimated $2 billion budget gap, the city's mayor proposed a nearly 17 percent reduction in the amount allocated the previous year
- to maintain the city's major cultural institutions and
- to subsidize hundreds of local arts groups.

(C)
Faced with an estimated $2 billion budget gap, the city's mayor proposed
- to reduce, by nearly 17 percent, the amount from the previous year that was allocated for the maintenance of the city's major cultural institutions and
- to subsidize hundreds of local arts groups.

Can an expert come and comment b/w A and C? I myself selected A at the first glance but now when I am looking at the elements of parallel in choice C, it seems grammatically parallelism is fine but I'm not sure whether the parallelism logically right or not!!!?

Ron, Guruny, Tim, Geva, Jim, and other experts come and help us.

hi guys
thanks to all for replies and ideas
i start to think that the issue between A and C is not ||-ism, or at least not grammer ||-ism
but non-essential modifier , by nearly 17 percent,which in general can be omitted without harm, but here dropping it results in non-complete sentence that lacks essential info
also think that it would be great any experts reply on this sentence, as it looks not trivial one

A maintains tense and parallelism

hi Ron
thank you for reply, it is clear now
but one more question
can we reject C on the grounds of misplaced modifier
-year that was allocated for the maintenance perhaps it is not year that was allocated, but rather ammount
or i must treat it as
the amount......... that was allocated for the maintenance
in this case we have no problem with modifier, but rather exception of the touch rool, and the main issue of the sentence is intended meaning
thanks

thanks again Ron
one of the greatest replies i`ve ever seen
you rock!!!

Hi Ron,

If the touch rule does not strictly apply to "that", then why is it that in Q.40 in OG SC Diagnostic, "one of the Kirchoff's laws that" is incorrect because "That appears to refer to laws rather than one".

Is there any difference in the use of that in Q.50 and Q.40?