Sentence Correction

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.

(A) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of
(B) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their
unlawful seizure of
(C) two upstate New York counties to owe restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of
D) on two upstate New York counties that owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because they unlawfully seized
E) on the restitution that two upstate New York counties owned to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of

Let us look at each of the answer options -
A- correct answer.
B- Usage of 'their' is incorrect. In a clause, the same pronouns must have the same antecedent.
Let us take a look at this example -
While depressed property values can hurt some large investors, for homeowners they are potentially devastating, because their equity -in many cases representing a life's savings-can plunge or even disappear.
In this case 'they' refers to 'depressed property values'; 'their' refers to 'homeowners' - two different things. Hence, Incorrect.
Similarly in B - "because of their unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century." Here, the first "their" refers to counties; the second 'their' refers to Oneida Indians. Incorrect.
C - Same problem as in B with "their". "ruled two upstate NY counties" absurdly implies that the Supreme court ruled those counties.
D - same problem with pronouns."rule on X" means to give a decision or judgment about X. for example - "the court ruled on the motion". D uses this idiom incorrectly. the court cannot rule on counties.
E- unacceptable change of meaning. It implies that restitution was already owed before the court's ruling. It does not tell us what the court's decision was? A makes the court's decision clear - the court ruled that restitution was owed.

fiza gupta wrote:In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.

(A) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of
(B) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their
unlawful seizure of
(C) two upstate New York counties to owe restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of
D) on two upstate New York counties that owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because they unlawfully seized
E) on the restitution that two upstate New York counties owned to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of

Hi Fiza,

Whenever you post please do post the OA by putting it into the spoiler.
Please also mention the source of the question. This will drive more attention of the experts.

Richa,

thanks for pointing my mistake, will take care next time.
But source i have mentioned in the subject OG-2015

for above question OA:A