Sentence Correction

During the past decade, the labor market in France has not been operating according to free market principles, but instead stifling functioning through its various government regulations restricting the hiring and firing of workers.

(A) principles, but instead stifling functioning through its various government regulations restricting the hiring and firing of workers
(B) principles, instead it has been functioning in a stifled manner as a result of various government regulations that restrict the hiring and firing of workers
(C) principles, rather functioning despite being stifled as a result of government regulations that variously restrict worker hiring and firing
(D) principles; the hiring and firing of workers is restricted there by various government regulations, its functioning being stifled
(E) principles; instead, its functioning has been stifled by various government regulations restricting the hiring and firing of workers

OA:E

My problem: We use semicolon if:
a. We need to connect two related thoughts.
b. The second thought is able to stand alone as a sentence, having its subject and verb.

In E above, a) is met but not b).
If a sentence starts with instead, how can it be an independent clause ?
Also,
What is wrong with other answer choices A and B ?

dhonu121 wrote:During the past decade, the labor market in France has not been operating according to free market principles, but instead stifling functioning through its various government regulations restricting the hiring and firing of workers.

(A) principles, but instead stifling functioning through its various government regulations restricting the hiring and firing of workers
(B) principles, instead it has been functioning in a stifled manner as a result of various government regulations that restrict the hiring and firing of workers
(C) principles, rather functioning despite being stifled as a result of government regulations that variously restrict worker hiring and firing
(D) principles; the hiring and firing of workers is restricted there by various government regulations, its functioning being stifled
(E) principles; instead, its functioning has been stifled by various government regulations restricting the hiring and firing of workers

OA:E

My problem: We use semicolon if:
a. We need to connect two related thoughts.
b. The second thought is able to stand alone as a sentence, having its subject and verb.

In E above, a) is met but not b).
If a sentence starts with instead, how can it be an independent clause ?
Also,
What is wrong with other answer choices A and B ?

In A, stifling conveys the OPPOSITE of the intended meaning. The labor market has not been STIFLING; it has been STIFLED. Eliminate A.

In B, COMMA + instead incorrectly serves to connect two complete clauses. Instead is not a conjunction but an ADVERB; it cannot serve to connect two independent clauses. Eliminate B.

To convey the intended contrast, C needs to say the labor market HAS NOT BEEN operating...but HAS BEEN functioning. Eliminate C.

In D, the antecedent of its functioning seems to be the hiring and firing of workers, but it makes no sense to discuss the functioning of the hiring and firing of workers. The intention here is to discuss the functioning of the LABOR MARKET. Eliminate D.

The correct answer is E.

In E, the semi-colon is correctly followed by an independent clause, with its own subject and verb:
Instead, its functioning [subject] has been stifled [verb] by various government regulations restricting the hiring and firing of workers.
Here, instead serves as an adverb modifying the following clause.
Functioning is a GERUND serving as the SUBJECT of the clause.

In B, COMMA + instead incorrectly serves to connect two complete clauses. Instead is not a conjunction but an ADVERB; it cannot serve to connect two independent clauses. Eliminate B.

Isn't instead making the second clause a subordinate clause, in the same way as although does ?

Isn't C a main clause+subordinate clause construction ?

Here, instead serves as an adverb modifying the following clause.

Howz instead serving as adverb ?
An adverb modifies a verb,adverb or adjective. Can it modify a clause also ?
Can you give some examples ?

Thanks.

Hi Mitch, Though I agree that answer is E. But regarding "instead" as adverb modifying the clause after it is some thing new. I was aware that adverb can modify only verb and adjective.

can you please throw some light on such usage of ADVERB.

Thanks