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
OA is B
Hi,
I narrowed this down to B and E via parallelism but couldn't break down the reasons for choosing E vs. B.
What is the difference between "leading to" vs. "having led to"?
I picked E because I thought(incorrectly) that "having led..." showed a proper cause>result relationship. The manufacturer pulled the product >> led to the drop in the share price. Don't we need the word "having" ?
The CAT explanation states that this attributes the drop in share price to the soap manufacturer itself as opposed to the manufacturer’s actions. I don't see that -- can someone help explain this?
Thanks!