Hi, there. I'm happy to give my 2¢ on this issue.
This is a very tricky use of the subjunctive.
... if Freud was to be allowed to leave Vienna. This has the verb "was" in the ordinary past tense. It was factual and determined: Freud was going to be allowed leave Vienna --- as long as somebody greased some Nazi palms, then there was absolutely no doubt about this possibility.
... if Freud were to be allowed to leave Vienna. This has the verb "were" in the subjunctive, which in an "if" clause suggests a situation contrary to fact. This would say that, in fact, Freud was
not going to be allowed to leave Vienna, that it was
not a realistic possibility, but we could imagine some other, hypothetical set of circumstances in which that would be a possibility.
The relationship here calls for the factual statement. When Maria Bonaparte put up the money, there was no doubt in anyone's mind that Freud would be allowed to go. Yes, it was a shady deal, but nonetheless as cause-and-effect factual as going to the store to buy groceries.
After I pay for my groceries, I take them home. Factual and clear.
After I pay for my groceries, I would take them home. That's a strange incomplete thought, because it implies that for some reason I can't take the groceries home, and we are left wondering:
why can't he take them home?
That's why (B) is wrong. Does this make sense? Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Mike
_________________
Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test PrepEducation is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)