Sentence Correction

The federal immigration station on Ellis Island, which was first opened in 1892, then rebuilt in 1900, processing nearly three quarters of all immigrants entering the United States in the first quarter of the twentieth century.

(A) The federal immigration station on Ellis Island, which was first opened in 1892, then rebuilt in 1900, processing nearly three quarters of all immigrants entering the United States in the first quarter of the twentieth century.
(B) Having processed nearly three quarters of all immigrants who enter the United States in the first quarter of the twentieth century, the federal immigration station on Ellis Island first opened in 1892 and then was rebuilt in 1900.
(C) Processing nearly three quarters of all immigrants to enter the United States in the first quarter of the twentieth century, the federal immigration station on Ellis Island first opened in 1892, being rebuilt in 1900.
(D) First opened in 1892, then rebuilt in 1900, the federal immigration station on Ellis Island processed nearly three quarters of all immigrants entering the United States in the first quarter of the twentieth century.
(E) Of all immigrants to enter the United States in the first quarter of the twentieth century, the federal immigration station on Ellis Island processed nearly three quarters of them, having first opened in 1892 and rebuilt in 1900.

my doubt: i can understand that B is wrong .but i want to know something more specific about "initial modifier" .i believe that "initial modifiers" should make sense not only with the subject of the clause after comma but also with the entire main clause that comes after comma .so my contention is that had B been : Having processed nearly three quarters of all immigrants who entered the United States, the federal immigration station on Ellis Island first opened in 1892 and then was rebuilt in 1900. .it still would have been wrong because "having processed.." is nowhere related to "opened" and "rebuilt" . is my understanding correct?
thanks

Thanks Guru for corroborating my understanding .But i want to know the larger implication of "initial modifiers"
Kindly tell me whether initial modifiers do need to make sense with the main clause after the comma or is it sufficient for them to just make sense with the subject of the main clause. "this thing" is easy to understand in "having verbed" modifiers because of tense construction but what about other "initial modifiers"

if i am not able to put across my point then kindly consider the following sentence (please ignore other grammar mistakes if any): Occupying an area of 1700 square feet, the federal immigration station on Ellis Island first opened in 1892.------>i feel that this sentence would be wrong because "occupying area" is not related to "opening of any institution"

Guru, if what i am saying is right then can you please guide me through some official problems or your self created sentences which can further substantiate my understanding.

Thanks for your valuable inputs that u always give
Regards

GMATGuruNY wrote:

aditya8062 wrote:my doubt: i can understand that B is wrong .but i want to know something more specific about "initial modifier" .i believe that "initial modifiers" should make sense not only with the subject of the clause after comma but also with the entire main clause that comes after comma .so my contention is that had B been : Having processed nearly three quarters of all immigrants who entered the United States, the federal immigration station on Ellis Island first opened in 1892 and then was rebuilt in 1900. .it still would have been wrong because "having processed.." is nowhere related to "opened" and "rebuilt" . is my understanding correct?
thanks

Correct.
An introductory HAVING + VERBed modifier must serve to express a PRIOR ACTION that directly affects the VERB in the following clause.
B: Having processed nearly three quarters of all immigrants, the federal immigration station first opened in 1892.
Here, having processed implies that the station processed nearly three quarters of all immigrants BEFORE it first opened and that the act of processing of these immigrants directly affected HOW the station first opened.
Neither meaning is intended.
Eliminate B.

Is "having + verb_ed " a wrong construction?

rashedais wrote: Is "having + verb_ed " a wrong construction?

having + VERBed is a viable construction.
An introductory HAVING + VERBed modifier implies PRIOR ACTION: an action completed before the main verb.
HAVING FINISHED his dessert, John LEFT the table.
Here, HAVING FINISHED implies PRIOR ACTION -- an action completed before John LEFT the table.
Note:
While the HAVING + VERBed modifier technically is an adjective modifying the subject John, it also plays an adverbial role, providing context for how John LEFT the table.
Check my posts here:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/anti-povert ... 78909.html