1. If you choose either option A or option B, the subject of the initial DEFYING is THE INMATES. This does not make any sense, as it is not the inmates themselves who defy the rigid relationship barriers in question: rather, it is the situation created by the state forest department that does so. Discard A and B.

2. Much the same applies in option C, but perhaps the simplest basis on which to eliminate this one is the comma splice: the use of a comma to join two independent clauses, which occurs here between DO and THEY.

3. The choice is therefore between D and E, but D has two problems. First, AN ARRANGEMENT TO DEFY implies that the intention of the arrangement is to defy those relationship barriers. This is not the intended meaning and in fact would make little sense. Second, and perhaps worse, is the clause that are enforced rigidly. How exactly does one enforce something RIGIDLY? This is a case of ineffective diction. And even if it were acceptable, it would involve a meaning change: the idea is that the relationship barriers are rigid, not that somebody enforces them RIGIDLY.

4. This leaves only option E, which begins logically with AN ARRANGEMENT in order to refer to the situation created by the selection carried out by the state forest department. The subsequent clause uses THAT DEFIES to describe the effect (rather than the intention) of the arrangement, and talks logically about RIGID RELATIONSHIP BARRIERS.
(I assume that in your source this option is given as the correct answer.)

If you like this post, please click on the THANK icon.

You can also visit us at https://www.xgmat.com/