Option(B) is correct
There is one main problem with the original sentence.
(1)The sentence is constructed in a misleading fashion, giving the impression that conservatives criticized Bush’s promise as opposed to his breaking of that promise. When read in its entirety, the sentence incorrectly indicates that it wasn’t Bush’s promise that received considerable criticism but his breaking of the promise.
When correcting this sentence, it is important to keep parallelism in mind.
Each part of the economic conservatives’ philosophy must be parallel. To do this, the sentence should read: whose philosophy decried..., insisted..., and contended
A. The sentence is constructed in a misleading fashion, giving the impression that the conservatives criticized Bush’s promise as opposed to his breaking of that promise
B. The sentence correctly states that it was Bush (not his past promise) that received criticism; the objections of economic conservatives are listed in a parallel fashion
C. The sentence is constructed in a misleading fashion, giving the impression that the
conservatives criticized Bush’s promise as opposed to his breaking of that promise; this sentence gives the misleading understanding of the objections of economic conservatives (i.e., it seems to imply that the insistence that low taxes create wealth, and the contention that deregulation promoted innovation are not explanations for or parts of the economic conservatives' objections)
D. Each part of the economic conservatives’ philosophy is not parallel (i.e., the phrasewho decried tax hikes, having insisted ... and contending that ... is not parallel)
E. Each part of the economic conservatives’ philosophy is not parallel (i.e., the phrasewho decried tax hikes, insist ... and contend... is not parallel)