Research indicates that infants born to mothers over the age of 40 and

Hey, Thanks for the explanation I get that it's redundant to use 'running in the family'.
I juggled between C and E and finally marked E because if you ask me to compare between 'whose families' and 'with a history of..' I felt latter makes more sense since it reduces the (unnecessary)usage of pronouns. And also I didn't feel E much weird since it conveys the exact meaning and fits about right.

Please do let me know if I missed something with my approach.

Posted from my mobile device

(A) and their families have a history of hypospadias
"their" can refer back to infants and mothers both. ambiguous

(B) and a history of hypospadias runs in the family
this makes the sentence sound like talking about two different things. "infants....mothers... and a history...."
incorrect

(C) whose families have a history of hypospadias
seems fine

(D) whose families have a history of hypospadias running in them
same as A

(E) with a history of hypospadias running in their family
same as A
IMO C

Hi ramyasree0299,

I think you misinterpreted "absurd" as "redundant" in my explanation of rejecting (E) as a correct answer choice. I wrote, "In (E), "with a history of hypospadias running in their family" seems to be implying that the infants were born to mothers with a history of hypospadias. The meaning is absurd. Did infants have a history of hypospadias?" I was hinting towards "with phrase" masquerading as an "adverbial modifier" here.
You said that you didn't feel E much weird. Well, in reality, it is very weird. Let's see the entire sentence with (E),

Research indicates that infants born to mothers over the age of 40 with a history of hypospadias running in their family are more likely than others to have this particular birth defect.

If I redact the prepositional modifiers and other not so important stuff and strip this sentence to its bare bones, it will look something like this-

Infants born to mothers with a history of X running in their family are likely than others to have a birth defect.

See the weirdness now? No? Let's contrast this with (C).

Infants born to mothers whose families have a history of X are more likely than others to have a birth defect.

Do you see why "running in their family" modifying "history" is pretty weird compared to plain and simple, "families have a history".
If you can't see the indirect language in (E), then there's another issue in (E). "with a history of X running in their family" is a prepositional phrase modifying the noun it touches, i.e., "mothers". In my opinion, it is a pretty ugly usage of a "with phrase" as an adjectival modifier.
You don't say, Mary married a man named John with a huge beard. Here, the placement of "with a huge beard" makes it ambiguous as to what it modifies. The action of "Mary marrying John", or the man "John"? A direct simpler sentence for this example is- Mary married a man named John who has a huge beard. Here "who" is a relative pronoun that is modifying the noun it touches "John". So, there is no ambiguity.

I hope it makes sense.

P.S: Please tag me by using "@" + my username. That way I can be notified and thus I can respond promptly to your query.

Research indicates that infants born to mothers over the age of 40 and their families have a history of hypospadias are more likely than others to have this particular birth defect.
Ans:C
(A) and their families have a history of hypospadias--run on sentence
(B) and a history of hypospadias runs in the family--not a list
(C) whose families have a history of hypospadias--correct
(D) whose families have a history of hypospadias running in them--in them is not required
(E) with a history of hypospadias running in their family--wrong usage of with

Experts' Global Official Explanation:

Grammatical Construction + Modifiers + Pronouns + Meaning + Redundancy/Awkwardness

Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended core meaning of this sentence is that infants born to mothers over the age of 40 whose families have a history of hypospadias are more likely than others to have the said birth defect.

• Any elements linked by a conjunction (“and” in this sentence) must be parallel.

A. This answer choice fails to maintain parallelism between the modifying phrase “born to mothers over the age of 40” and the independent clause “their families have a history of hypospadias”; please remember that any elements linked by a conjunction (“and” in this sentence) must be parallel. The fundamental reason for this lack of parallelism is that the use of the “and” is inappropriate in this context, as it alters the meaning of the sentence by incorrectly implying that the conditions of being born to mothers over the age of 40 and their families having a history of hypospadias are two independent conditions that both apply to the infants; the intended meaning is that infants born to mothers, who are over the age of 40 and whose families have a history of hypospadias are more likely than others to have the said birth defect.

B. This answer choice fails to maintain parallelism between the modifying phrase “born to mothers over the age of 40” and the independent clause “a history of hypospadias runs in the family”; please remember that any elements linked by a conjunction (“and” in this sentence) must be parallel. The fundamental reason for this lack of parallelism is that the use of the “and” is inappropriate in this context, as it alters the meaning of the sentence by incorrectly implying that the conditions of being born to mothers over the age of 40 and hypospadias running in the family are two independent conditions that both apply to the infants; the intended meaning is that infants born to mothers, who are over the age of 40 and whose families have a history of hypospadias are more likely than others to have the said birth defect. Further, Option B uses the needlessly wordy phrase “a history of hypospadias runs in the family”, leading to awkwardness; the use of the word “runs” is redundant, as “a history of hypospadias in the family” sufficiently conveys the intended meaning- that older family members have suffered from hypospadias.

C. Correct. This answer choice correctly modifies “mothers over the age of 40” with “whose families have a history of hypospadias”, conveying the intended meaning of the sentence- that infants born to mothers over the age of 40, whose families have a history of hypospadias are more likely than others to have the said birth defect. Further, Option C avoids the parallelism error seen in Options A and B, as it directly modifies “mothers over the age of 40” with “whose families have a history of hypospadias” rather than using a conjunction. Additionally, Option C is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

D. This answer choice uses the needlessly wordy phrase “families have a history of hypospadias running in them”, leading to awkwardness; the phrase “running in them” is redundant, as “families have a history of hypospadias” sufficiently conveys the intended meaning- that older family members have suffered from hypospadias.

E. Trap. This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase “running in their family”; the construction of this phrase illogically implies that all of the “mothers over 40” have a single family; the intended meaning is that infants born to mothers over the age of 40 whose respective families have a history of hypospadias are more likely than others to have the said birth defect. Further, Option E uses the needlessly wordy phrase “a history of hypospadias running in their family”, leading to awkwardness; the use of the word “running” is redundant, as “a history of hypospadias in the family” sufficiently conveys the intended meaning- that older family members have suffered from hypospadias.

C is the best answer choice.

Experts' Global Video Explanation: