neither... nor...
not...or...

单独的 nor 后面一定要接完整的 clause,而且要倒装。出现neither..nor..的时候，不需要 not 等否定的词汇出现，因为 neither 已经有了否定的含义。主语+谓语+neither XX nor XX

be preoccupied with 专注于
be curious about 好奇
neither... nor...
not...or...

1. neither nor
2. reasons for +结果； for reasons of +原因
3. it 指代不了复数

D：We can have “neither/nor” or “not/or,” but we can’t have “neither/or.”
In addition, the plural is off here: “parents’ divorces.” "Divorces" sounds like the parents had multiple divorces. While it might be the case that their parents had multiple divorces, it is unlikely, especially since the statement discusses a single divorce earlier on in the sentence: “ten years after the parents' divorce.”
(D) is out.

E：In general, any time you find yourself wondering whether a certain construction is allowed, you don't want to use it as a decision point. It's very easy to get lost deliberating over rules that don't actually exist.

In this case, "reasons that their parents divorced," isn't the world's most elegant phrase, but I'm not sure that it's WRONG, exactly. There's no concrete grammatical error. The notion isn't illogical. So I'm not getting rid of an answer choice on this basis alone. (Notice that there's no need for a preposition here. And while there are certainly hard-core grammar teachers who will insist that you can't end a sentence with a preposition, there's no consensus on this, so if I encountered this construction, I'd avoid using it as a reason to kill an answer choice.)

So instead, let's search for a more concrete error in (E). Take another look:

"...neither preoccupied with the reasons that their parents divorced nor even very curious about it"

What does "it" refer to here? The only logical referent is "the reasons," but "it" has to refer to a singular noun, so this is a definitive error. Now I'm perfectly happy giving (E) the boot.

The takeaway: Anytime you're unsure about a rule, accept the possibility that there might be no rule, and look for either concrete grammatical errors or problems with logic and meaning.

C：Here the neither/nor works.

Let’s now break up the sentence as we did in (A) and (B):

1) “preoccupied WITH the reasons.” - This works.
2) “curious WITH the reasons.” - Nope, we don’t have the right idiom here. The idiom is “curious ABOUT.”

In addition, there seems to be an issue with commas in this option:

The commas after "preoccupied" and after "curious" seem to act as parentheses--they are there to indicate extra, nonessential information.
But watch what happens if we get rid of the comma-separated part in (C): "children were neither preoccupied with the reasons that led to their parents divorce." This sentence now doesn't make sense on it's own.
In (B), however, if we get rid of the comma-separated part, we have: "...children were not preoccupied with the reasons...", which is totally fine. This is another vote in favor of (B) over (C).

Also (and this might just be a typo), there should be an apostrophe after parents to indicate possession: “parents’ divorce.”

(B) is still the best option, so let's get rid of (C).

A：The first issue with (A) is idiomatic: we have "not...nor" instead of "neither...nor." But it's best to be conservative when it comes to idioms, so let's chalk this up as a strike against (A) and move on.

Next, we have two descriptors for the children, so let’s see if the sentence works for each one individually:

1) children {...} were not preoccupied ABOUT the reasons {...}
2) [children] {...} were not even very curious ABOUT the reasons {...}

You can be curious ABOUT something, so the second bit works here. But you can only be preoccupied WITH something, not preoccupied ABOUT something. So we have another idiomatic issue and our second strike against (A).

The final issue (which does not involve idioms) is that the second part of the sentence is a bit redundant—we don’t need to say that they were reasons "that led to" their divorce because that’s what reasons do... something like “reasons for their divorce” would suffice. That gives us our third strike against (A).

If you aren't sure about the idioms, you'll have a tough time eliminating (A) right away. But with three votes against it, (A) isn't looking good.

be occupied with
be curious about

be occupied with
be curious about
E在于it（单数）

前几天做题怎么还看到not, nor的用法 马一下

请问C选项里 the reason that lead to 在GMAT里是重复意思吗？

be preoccupied with 专注于
be curious about 好奇
neither... nor...
not...or...

be preoccupied with 专注于
be curious about 好奇

the reasons that their parents divorced是不对的表达，reasons在不能做从句中的成分

E选项it不能指代reasons，reasons是复数

idioms: reason that led to...-->redundant,排除a/c/d

idioms: reason that led to...-->redundant,排除a/c/d

neither nor固定搭配，排除AD.
AC选项preoccupied with 和curious about结构不完整，不平行
E选项it无指代

E就只有这个it用错了，只要出现了代词就注意观察，经常会出现指代单复数问题！

总觉得这个about后面的逗号很奇怪