GMAT_AS wrote:The United States has relaxed overseas borrowing rules for corporates, as a result US based
companies will now find it easier to refinance their dollar loans through overseas debt.
(A) has relaxed overseas borrowing rules for corporates, as a result US based companies will
now find
Incorrect. Here, 2 independent clauses are inappropriately joined by a comma. They should either be joined by ", and", a semicolon, or left as 2 different sentences. There should also be a comma after "result".
(B) has relaxed overseas borrowing rules for corporates, hence companies in the US will now
find
Incorrect. Here, 2 independent clauses are inappropriately joined by a comma. They should either be joined by a semicolon or left as 2 different sentences. There should also be a comma after "hence".
(C) has relaxed borrowing rules for overseas corporates, resulting in US based companies
now finding
Incorrect. The "resulting" after the comma works to join the two clauses, but "resulting in US-based companies now finding..." is awkward and unidiomatic.
(D) relaxation of overseas borrowing rules for corporates resulted in US based companies
now finding
Incorrect. "The United States relaxation of..." is incorrect. "United States" is an inappropriate modifier for "relaxation." It would need to be the possessive "United States'", but even this is awkward.
(E) has relaxed overseas borrowing rules for corporates, so US based companies will now
find
Correct. The "so" after the comma makes the second clause dependent on the first. Since the second part follows as a result of the first, ", so" is an appropriate way to link the two clauses.

Answer is E . Please help!