In the major cities of industrialized countries at the end of the nineteenth century, important public places such as theaters, restaurants, shops, and banks had installed electric lighting, but electricity was in less than one percent of homes, where lighting was still provided mainly by candles or gas.
A. electricity was in less than one percent of homes, where lighting was still
B. electricity was in less than one percent of homes and lighting still
C. there were less than one percent of homes with electricity, where lighting was still being
D. there was less than one percent of homes that had electricity, having lighting that was still
E. less than one percent of homes had electricity, where lighting had still been

The correct answer is A, which is in the orginal sentence. I understand why B-D are not correct. Can someone explain to me why A is a better answer than E though? Thanks.

for (E) , it should be where lighting still was provided by ..

There are at least the following 2 things wrong with choice E:

* The tense ('had still been') is wrong considering the context. 'Had still been' implies that lighting in homes was no longer provided by candles and gas at the time referenced in the sentence (past perfect means that event is over with and done, although it may still be in some way relevant to the CURRENT situation). But the sentence is supposed to say that home electricity was still being provided by these items.

* Misplaced modifier: The way this sentence is written, it implies that electricity is 'where lighting had still been provided ... blah blah blah'. But this description is clearly supposed to refer to homes.

I agree that choice A sounds pretty retarded, but it avoids these mistakes.

We actually have passive voice here " mainly by candles or gas.". Why discard C? Isn't C more parallel to the first part then A?

C is bad because of the 'there were' construction. That construction is used, generally, in one of two ways:
(1) You're postulating the general existence of something: 'There are only two ways to solve this problem.'
(2) You're pointing out what is in a particular location: 'There are four cars in the street.'

You aren't doing either of these things here, so the construction is inappropriate.

Also, 'being' is pointless and redundant (note: 'being' is a HUGE red flag on GMAT problems; it's almost always redundant, and thus fatal to whichever answer choice it's in)

What is wrong with Option B in this case?
B. electricity was in less than one percent of homes and lighting still

"and lighting still" is the major problem.

First, that last bit is supposed to be saying something about homes - in homes, lighting was still mainly provided by candles or gas.

"electricity was in less than one percent of homes and lighting still provided mainly by candles or gas" doesn't explicitly tell me that the "lighting still provided mainly by candles or gas" was in homes. Also, a verb is missing - it would, at the least, have to say "lighting was still provided..."

Either issue is enough to ding the answer choice.

Dear moderators,

Would option D be correct if not for the part "there was"? --> should be "there were"?

For discussion purposes, would option D be correct if the answer starts with "there were"?

I figured the subject of the topic involves places (major cities and homes), thus the usage of "there" would be appropriate?

Thanks
Lee

no, choice d still has major issues.

- 'there were' / 'there was' is a very common construction in spoken english, but its use in formal written language (such as the language of the gmat) is ordinarily restricted to discussion of the physical location of things (as in, those things literally were there, etc.) if it's not being used in this sense, it's considered wordy, because it can be replaced by more concise phrasing.
additionally, you only use this construction when you are actually asserting the presence of something/someone (where it is not already obvious). for instance, if you start a sentence with 'there are two cars in the street...', you're assuming that your reader does not already know that there are tow cars in the street. otherwise, you'd start with something like 'the two cars in the street are...'
example:
there were less than 1 percent of homes with electricity
this is bad. first of all, we aren't using the sentence to assert the presence of the homes - they're already understood to be there. (also, it's not really clear where 'there' is.) second, we can easily rephrase this to 'less than 1% of homes had electricity', which is much nicer and more concise.

- 'having' is used incorrectly. if you use a participle like this, you're introducing an adverb modifier, which modifies the action of the preceding clause. unfortunately, the main action word of the preceding clause is 'was' (from 'there was'), so the modifier doesn't make sense. even if you are generous enough to let the modifier modify 'had electricity', it still doesn't make sense (as the modifier doesn't give the way in which the houses had electricity).

Hi Ron,

Thank you for replying to my posts, I really appreciate it.

I would like to check where can I learn more information about "adverb modifiers" and their usage? I didn't know till you taught me --> "having" after a comma, the word "having" is acting as a adverb modifier.

Pretty disturbing for someone who has been learning GMAT for some time now.
Thanks
KH

here's a start:
http://flang1.kendall.mdc.edu/6/611/611pathsnew/L611Lec2/L611Lec2.htm

you can find tons of stuff if you hit up google and type "adverb modifiers" or "adverb clauses" (including the quotes).