A recently proposed law would accomplish the goal of protect

[BTGmoderatorDC]

A recently proposed law would accomplish the goal of protecting Florida's manatee population without the loss of revenue from stipulations of restriction on the tourist and fishing industries by previously proposed laws.

(A) stipulations of restriction on the tourist and fishing industries by previously proposed laws
(B) stipulations by previously proposed laws of restrictions on the tourist and fishing industries
(C) stipulations for restrictions on the fishing industries and the tourist industry of previously proposed laws
(D) restrictions on the tourist and fishing industries that were stipulated by laws proposed previously
(E) restrictions on the tourist and fishing industries stipulated by previously proposed laws

OA E

Source: Princeton Review

[deloitte247]

The loss of revenue should follow a parallelism on the exact subject that is being lost.
So loss of revenue from restrictions why? restriction cause the loss.

Option A :- Incorrect
This does not follow parallelism and the right syntax is not obeyed. Stipulations by will be chosen over stipulations of

Option B :- Incorrect
Suffers the same fate as Option A above. It does not follow parallelism.

Option C :- Incorrect
Stipulations for is totally out of this world and is a bad English combo!

Option D :- Incorrect
This actually follows the right parallelism, but the sentence was flawed at the middle, the use of that were sounds tautological and it is not required, also makes the sentence verbose.

Option E :- correct
This Option is concise, follows parallelism and syntax.