In the question below, a sentence is given, divided

Solution

Part E is the odd part. A opens the sentence by introducing the subject — the architectural philosophy underpinning the city's. B follows A by completing the subject phrase and introducing the main predicate — most celebrated public spaces deliberately rejected. C follows B by specifying what was rejected — the modernist obsession with functional segregation. D follows C by introducing the alternative embraced — in favour of layered, permeable environments. F concludes by specifying what these environments do — that blur the boundaries between civic, commercial, and residential life. The logical chain is A → B → C → D → F, forming — "The architectural philosophy underpinning the city's most celebrated public spaces deliberately rejected the modernist obsession with functional segregation in favour of layered, permeable environments that blur the boundaries between civic, commercial, and residential life." E is the odd part. It introduces an isolated biographical-historical fact — Le Corbusier designed the Chandigarh master plan in the 1950s — which, while architecturally adjacent in theme, is a standalone claim that belongs to a different discussion about a specific architect and project. It does not connect grammatically or logically to any other part, and its removal leaves the sentence complete. Hence (A) ABCDF is the correct answer.