soap manufacturer

j_shreyans wrote:The soap manufacturer conceded that its product may have contributed to the recent outbreak of skin irritation experienced by its consumers and having pulled the product, led to a sharp drop in the company’s share price.


A)having pulled the product, led to

B)pulled the product, leading to

C)pulling the product, leading to

D)pulled the product, led to

E)pulled the product, having led to


Why not option D why B

Hello j_shreyans,

Few points to consider in option D:

Option D as given is a run-on. The last two clauses are juxtapositioned meaning that the sentence is a run-on.'May have contributed and may have pulled the product,may have led' creates a run-on . Parallelism requires that the last item in the list be preceded by an 'and'. However,not all items given are in the same level of hierarchy in terms of meaning, so placing the last clause in an equivalent level to previous clause will be superficial. Also,called superficial parallelism. So a better approach is to use a participial clause modifying the previous clause. Hence, option B is superior to option D