Maria Bonaparte put up the ransom that the Nazis insisted on if Freud

We cannot use the subjunctive ‘were’ here because allowing Freud to leave is not a wish, an impossible task or even a fancy. Therefore, we are required to use the indicative mood of ‘was’. B is, therefore, unsuitable in this context. A is the correct answer.

There is a subtle difference between "was to be allowed" and "was allowed", and it has to do with the timing of the "insisting" and the "allowing."

In general, if something is "to be," it hasn't happened yet. The homework "to be" completed is the homework you still have to do. The completed homework, on the other hand, is already done.

To see the logic in this case, let's replace "was to be allowed" with "was allowed" in choice (A):

"Maria Bonaparte put up the ransom that the Nazis insisted on if Freud was allowed to leave Vienna." - This makes it sounds as though the Nazis only insisted on a ransom IF Freud was allowed to leave Vienna -- as if the Nazis would insist on the ransom AFTER Freud was (already) allowed to leave.

Now back to the original (correct) version of choice (A):

"Maria Bonaparte put up the ransom that the Nazis insisted on if Freud was to be allowed to leave Vienna." - Here the correct sequence of events is more clear: first the ransom must be paid and THEN Freud would be allowed to leave.

Luckily we don't have to choice between those two options on this question. (Btw, mikemcgarry gives a great explanation of A vs B in this post.)

I hope that helps!

Even I did the same mistake. Actually there is no need of subjunctive verb here.
B is useful in case if there is any hypothetical situation.

but

Nazis insisted on that Maria Bonaparte pay the ransom if Freud was to be allowed to leave Vienna.

This was a clear condition. Pay the money and let Freud go.
There is no hypothetical situation where you can use subjunctive verb here.

I hope this helps.

Maria Bonaparte put up the ransom that the Nazis insisted on if Freud was to be allowed to leave Vienna.

A. if Freud was to be allowed

B. if Freud were allowed...........I selected this one thinking it to be a subjunctive.

C. should Freud be allowed............should usage is wrong.

D. if they will allow Freud.............they refer to Nazis here and will allow future tense is incorrect here.

E. should allowance be made for Freud....................should usage is wrong in subjunctive and whole sentence construction is ambiguous.

refer mcgarry explanation in below link
maria-bonaparte-put-up-the-ransom-that-the-nazis-insisted-on-128473.html

generis,

Ain't "if clauses" used in GMAT as "conditionals"?

Kindly, share your two cents.

The OA not provided can anyone please provide the OA with OE.

would be thankful

according to the subjunctive verb usage I chose B as an option. What did I do wrong ? can someone explain ?

Maria Bonaparte put up the ransom that the Nazis insisted on if Freud was to be allowed to leave Vienna.

A. if Freud was to be allowed - Correct
B. if Freud were allowed - uses subjunctive incorrectly. For if .... ,then statements, we need a conditional verb for the consequence of the hypothetical. But this event is factual .
C. should Freud be allowed - the use of "should" to mean "if" is incorrect
D. if they will allow Freud - usage of will is incorrect since the event has already occurred
E. should allowance be made for Freud - awkward
Answer A

Hi Experts,

I have a question on A.

What is the difference between "was to be allowed" and "was allowed"?
Isn't it too wordy to use "was to be allowed" rather than just "was allowed"?

Thank you.

As far as i understand from the explanations above, given the context we need to use the simple conditional since is not a situation that could not happen, so you cannot use "if he were".

Pretty subtle question, one of the most difficult i've encountered so far. Got trapped by B

I expect not to see something like this if not at V40 at the very least.

Maria Bonaparte put up the ransom that the Nazis insisted on if Freud was to be allowed to leave Vienna.

Let's understand the basics first.
Indicative mood with "if": Indicative mood is used to express a condition that is considered true or likely. It describes the situations that are factual or real. The verb forms used with "if" in the indicative mood are of normal reality, without any inherent doubt or hypothetical nature. E.g., If it rains, I will take the umbrella. This expresses the real and likely scenario (There is a slight difference with the "when" conditional. "When" in the conditional introduces a condition that is expected or certain to happen. It implies a sense of certainty or inevitability regarding the condition. E.g., When I finish work, I will go to the gym. (This expresses an expected condition. The speaker is confident that they will finish work and then go to the gym.)

"If" in the Conditional Mood: It is used to introduce the hypothetical or uncertain conditions. It describes a situation that is contrary to the current reality. E.g., If I were rich, I would travel the world. (This expresses a hypothetical or contrary-to-fact condition. The speaker is not currently wealthy but imagines what they would do if they were.)

Option Elimination -

(A) if Freud was to be allowed - usage of the indicative mood. "Maria Bonaparte put up the ransom," expecting Freud would be allowed to leave Vienna. It talks about an expectation in the past.
(B) if Freud were allowed - We are not describing a hypothetical or uncertain condition here.
(C) should Freud be allowed - One is hypothetical. And secondly, it suggests a recommendation or moral obligation regarding granting permission. However, in the given context of the original sentence, this construction does not accurately convey the requirement stated by the Nazis for Freud's departure.
(D) if they will allow Freud - the use of the future tense here is wrong.
(E) should allowance be made for Freud - This construction is convoluted and not idiomatic. It also lacks clarity and does not convey the intended meaning effectively.