Unlike many United States cities, where a river is no longer the focal point of urban life, the river in San Antonio winds through the middle of the business district, and the River Walk, or Pasco del Rio, is the city's most popular attraction.
A) Unlike many United States cities, where a river is no longer the focal point of urban life, the river in San Antonio
B) Unlike the river in many cities in the United Stated, which is no longer the local point of urban life, in San Antonio the river
C)Today the river in many cities in the United States is no longer the focal point of urban life, unlike San Antonio, where it
D) In few United States cities today, a river is the focal point of urban life, but the river in San Antonio
E) No longer do many cities in United States have a river as the focal point of urban life, but in San Antonio the river

What is the reason OA "E" is correct. What are the errors in all the other choices?

the correct answer here is still pretty ugly, so let's criticize the four incorrect choices.

choice a:
faulty comparison:
'unlike many u.s. cities, ... the river in san antonio...' --> can't compare cities to a river

choice b:
comparison isn't so good:
the second part should start directly with 'the river' (instead of 'in san antonio the river...'), so that the comparison is more clear.
much more importantly, poor use of the relative pronoun 'which':
'...cities in the united states, which is no longer the focal point...'
relative pronouns like which, by default, refer to the noun that's closest to the left, which in this case is the united states. therefore, this relative pronoun is used in a way that's either ambiguous (if you allow it to potentially refer to other nouns) or just plain wrong (if you follow the rule strictly).

choice c:
faulty comparison again
'the river...' is being compared to san antonio.

choice d:
drastic change in meaning
this sentence has completely gotten rid of any reference to the concept of 'no longer'. while all the other sentences say that things have changed, this sentence presents the situation as if it's always been that way.

I notice that I am always missing points to meaning distortions.. I cannot spot them as much as i need to. Can you show any pointers?


Also isnt E very very concise and clean?

Concision should be used ONLY as a tiebreak when you have no other grammar or meaning issues you can handle. Don't pick something just because it's shorter than the rest!

The distortion of meaning issue is a very difficult one - most people struggle with this. We just have to be very careful to maintain the meaning of the original sentence, which means making sure you understand the original intent and making sure that that intent is maintained in whatever you choose at the end.

(deleted - you can't quote o.g. problems here. check the banned sources list in the sticky!)

Sorry, I did not notice that announcement.

Thanks in advance for following our guidelines.

In few United States cities today, a river is the focal point of urban life, but the river in San Antonio [i]

doesn't the highlighted word suggest that the the river was the focal point at earlier..
also..in general is the placement of "today" fine in this sentence.. ??


Help

i think the placement of "today" in that sentence is a bit awkward, but i wouldn't necessarily call it wrong.

you have a good point about the word "today" suggesting that there were once more such cities. however, there's still a big distinction between the meaning of this sentence and the meaning of the original (which is the same as the meaning of choice e): the original (like choice e) specifically goes so far as to say that there were once MANY american cities in which a river was the focal point of urban life.
so, even though (d) does [i]suggest that there were once more such cities, it stops well short of saying/implying that there were once MANY such cities.