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

Question

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
(C) should Freud be allowed
(D) if they will allow Freud
(E) should allowance be made for Freud

https://www.nytimes.com/1983/02/06/books/an-unlikely-analyst.html

Marie Bonaparte's money supported the psychoanalytic movement in a variety of ways. She bailed out the Psychoanalytic Publishing House on several occasions, purchased Freud's correspondence with the Berlin physician Wilhelm Fliess (which she refused to let Freud have in case he destroyed it) and put up the ransom the Nazis demanded  when Freud finally agreed  to leave Vienna.

mikemcgarry · Accepted Answer

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

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear Rango , I'm happy to respond. The OA is (A), as indicated at the top. Here is a full explanation. First of all, the question stem again. 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 This choice has no grammatical flaw. It is concise and perfectly correct. This is a promising choice. (B) if Freud were allowed (C) should Freud be allowed Both of these are in the subjunctive, so they are hypothetical. Nothing about this historical event and situation was hypothetical. See https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-gramm ... ive-tense/ In this situation, the Nazis said: give us the money, and Freud can leave . Very factual. The hypothetical language of these two choices is completely inappropriate, and it changes the meaning from the prompt. Both of these are incorrect. (D) if they will allow Freud We are talking about an event more than half a century in the past, so the future verb tense, " will allow ", is completely wrong here. (E) should allowance be made for Freud If we ran a contest for the longest, most indirect, and most awkward way to rephrase the underlined portion, this choice might be the winner of that contest. There is absolutely no way this could be the correct answer. The only possible answer is (A) . Does all this make sense? Mike :-)

rango · Answer

The OA not provided can anyone please provide the OA with OE. would be thankful :banana

Nevernevergiveup · Answer

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

vartak1985 · Answer

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

Nevernevergiveup · Answer

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.

daagh · Answer

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.

Skywalker18 · Answer

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

ballest127 · Answer

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.

GMATNinja · 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!

PyjamaScientist · Answer

generis ,

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

Kindly, share your two cents.

Rail · Answer

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.

Raman109 · Answer

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

Option Elimination -

(A) if Freud was to be allowed - This statement shows the factual scenario and not the hypothetical one. In such cases we use if past, then past (to show fact or habit in the past).

(B) if Freud were allowed - We are not describing a hypothetical or uncertain condition here. It means that in reality he was not allowed which is contradictory to the fact.

(C) should Freud be allowed - It simply means "if Freud were to be allowed" the same hypothetical and counter to the fact.

(D) if they will allow Freud - the use of the future tense here is wrong.

(E) should allowance be made for Freud - it simply means " if allowance were to be made," its hypothetical and counter to the fact.

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards