As the stock market began its slow descent, many individual investors

I had the understanding that 'comma + whose' can only modify a person. Why is modifying 'accounts' with 'comma + whose' appropriate?

As the stock market began its slow descent, many individual investors moved their money out of index funds and into private equity accounts, whose range of investments were less restricted.



It seems this is a good part that most people passed offer. That whose. So in this sentence range is singular therefore we use a singular verb, but this is the trick on this one.

It is an adjective, a possessive form of who. It can also be used as a pronoun, but the count will depend on what you're taking about:
Adjective:
Whose dog is this?
He whose cup floweth over.
Pronoun:
Whose are these?
I chose whose to fill.

A - Whose is correctly pointing to accounts - Correct Answer
B, C - where is illogically modifying accounts
D - As per the context "with less rescritions.... investments " is illogically modifying whole preceeding clause
E - same as D

There is no restriction of whose (Restriction is present only on who and whom)
whose can be used to modify both persons and things

Please find the list

who , whom - persons
whose - persons and things
which , that - things

Hi daagh: In D, I get your point that less shouldn't be used for countable items but regarding the modifier, I have a doubt. Prepositional modifiers can serve as adjectival phrases right? Why can't with X modify a noun after the comma.

For example - With more than one hundred rupees in my pocket, I set out to the market.
I went back home, with panache and ...

Okay, I think, while constructing my line of thought, I got my answer but just to be sure - do you mean to say that when with appears after a comma at the end of a sentence, it always modifies the entire clause?

Thanks

OFFICIAL SOLUTION

The original sentence uses “whose range of investments was less restricted” to correctly modify the noun “accounts.” All other answer choices introduce errors. Answer (B) uses an incorrect relative pronoun, “where,” that should only be used to refer to places. It is also too wordy, creating multiple relative clauses with the word “that.” Answer (C) also uses the inappropriate relative pronoun “where,” and the pronoun “they” is vague because it could refer both to “accounts” and to “investors.” Answers (D) and (E) incorrectly use the adjective “less” to refer to “restrictions.” Because restrictions is a count-noun, it should be modified by “fewer.” Answer (E) also includes an –ing verb, which should be avoided if possible because it is vague. Finally, answers (C), (D), and (E) use articles inappropriately. “Range of investments” does not need to be introduced by “a” or “the.”

(A) whose range of investments was less restricted

whose refers back to private equity accounts, so looks good

(B) where there were investments that had a range that was less restricted

Where can only refer "physical" places, so this is wrong. In addition, this is way wordy than A)

(C) where they had a less restricted range of investments

Where can only refer "physical" places, so this is wrong. In addition, restriction is a countable, so we should use "fewer". Finally, is "they" referring back to investors, funds, accounts?.

(D) with less restrictions on the range of investments

With can refer back to anything, so this is messy, out. In addition, restriction is a countable, so we should use "fewer"

(E) having less restrictions on the range of investments

This is now saying that " Given that they were less restrictions (in general)", "many moved their money", so now the focus is not on the "private equity funds". out.

Answer is A