State lawmakers are considering a law allowing children of divorced pa

State lawmakers are considering a law allowing children of divorced parents as young as seven to choose the parent with whom they will live, which will likely dissuade those parents from disciplining or punishing their children.
(A) allowing children of divorced parents as young as seven to choose the parent with whom they will live, which will likely dissuade those parents
Never use which to indicate result=> wrong
(B) that would allow children as young as seven whose parents are divorced to choose the parent with whom they will live, a policy that would likely dissuade those parents
Correct
(C) that would allow children of divorced parents as young as seven to choose the parent that they will live with, a policy that will likely dissuade their parents
children of divorced parents as young as seven => ambiguous
their parents=> wrong
(D) allowing children as young as seven whose parents are divorced to choose the parent who they will live with, likely dissuading those parents
likely dissuading those parents=>fragmented
(E) that will allow children as young as seven with divorced parents to choose which parent with whom to live, a policy likely dissuading their parents
a policy likely dissuading their parents => awkward.

State lawmakers are considering a law allowing children of divorced parents as young as seven to choose the parent with whom they will live, which will likely dissuade those parents from disciplining or punishing their children.
(A) allowing children of divorced parents as young as seven to choose the parent with whom they will live, which will likely dissuade those parents
(B) that would allow children as young as seven whose parents are divorced to choose the parent with whom they will live, a policy that would likely dissuade those parents
(C) that would allow children of divorced parents as young as seven to choose the parent that they will live with, a policy that will likely dissuade their parents
(D) allowing children as young as seven whose parents are divorced to choose the parent who they will live with, likely dissuading those parents
(E) that will allow children as young as seven with divorced parents to choose which parent with whom to live, a policy likely dissuading their parents

State lawmakers are considering a law allowing children of divorced parents as young as seven to choose the parent with whom they will live, which will likely dissuade those parents from disciplining or punishing their children.


(A) allowing children of divorced parents as young as seven to choose the parent with whom they will live, which will likely dissuade those parents (allowing shows that the law is already in action).
(B) that would allow children as young as seven whose parents are divorced to choose the parent with whom they will live, a policy that would likely dissuade those parents correct
(C) that would allow children of divorced parents as young as seven to choose the parent that they will live with, a policy that will likely dissuade their parents (parents as young as 7 wrong modifier)
(D) allowing children as young as seven whose parents are divorced to choose the parent who they will live with, likely dissuading those parents
(E) that will allow children as young as seven with divorced parents to choose which parent with whom to live, a policy likely dissuading their parents

the answer B uses would with present tense context. Even though according to MGMAT this one is not a reporting sentence, i still don't understand the using of would over will.

Could someone please clarify.

(A) "Allowing" modifies the law. The law itself is still under consideration.
"Which" only modifies noun, not clause.
(B) Correct
(C) Meaning issue- The parents are as young as seven
(D) "Allowing" modifies the law. The law itself is still under consideration.
(E) Meaning issue: Children with divorced parents to choose new parent.
Sentence fragment: a policy....... likely dissuading

Kudos me if it helps

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(A)
The participle allowing suggests that the law is already allowing children to make the decisions in question. Since the law is still under consideration, the conditional (would allow) is more appropriate.
The modifier as young as seven is illogically placed after divorced parents, suggesting that the children’s parents are as young as seven.
The pronoun which has no legitimate antecedent. There is no noun at all directly before the comma, and the closest noun phrase, the parent with whom they will live, makes no logical sense as an antecedent.

(B) Correct
This choice correctly uses the conditional would allow to express the potential, rather than actual, power of the proposed law.
The modifier as young as seven is properly placed to modify children. (For an official problem that places a modifier similar to whose parents are divorced in a position like the one in which that modifier is placed here, see #50 in the Diagnostic Test section of the Official Guide for GMAT Review, 12th edition.)
The noun modifier a policy is used properly to describe the policy mentioned in the sentence. This form of modifier is the best option, since the pronoun which, as mentioned in regard to choice A, is inappropriate.

(C)
The modifier as young as seven is illogically placed after divorced parents, suggesting that the children’s parents are as young as seven.
The relative pronoun that cannot be used in reference to people (such as “the parent”).
The modifier that they will live with is substandard and cumbersome, and should be rephrased as with whom they will live.
The pronoun their sets up a mismatch with the subsequent use of their; the two pronouns have different intended antecedents, creating confusion and lack of clarity.

(D)
The participle allowing suggests that the law is already allowing children to make the decisions in question. Since the law is still under consideration, the conditional (would allow) is more appropriate.
Who should be whom, since it is the object of the preposition with.
The modifier who(m) they will live with is substandard and cumbersome, and should be rephrased as with whom they will live.
The participle dissuading suggests that the children’s choice itself dissuades their parents from disciplining them, but, in the true meaning of the sentence, the legal policy dissuades the parents from doing so.

(E)
The future tense will allow suggests that the law is certain to go into effect, contradicting the sentence’s description of the law as under consideration. Since the law is still under consideration, the conditional (would allow) is more appropriate.
The two relative pronouns which and with whom are redundant and cannot be used together.
The participle dissuading suggests that the policy under consideration is already dissuading parents from disciplining their children. The conditional would dissuade is more appropriate.
The pronoun their sets up a mismatch with the subsequent use of their; the two pronouns have different intended antecedents, creating confusion and lack of clarity.

The correct answer is B.

State lawmakers are considering a law allowing children of divorced parents as young as seven to choose the parent with whom they will live, which will likely dissuade those parents from disciplining or punishing their children.

(A) allowing children of divorced parents as young as seven to choose the parent with whom they will live, which will likely dissuade those parents

(B) that would allow children as young as seven whose parents are divorced to choose the parent with whom they will live, a policy that would likely dissuade those parents

(C) that would allow children of divorced parents as young as seven to choose the parent that they will live with, a policy that will likely dissuade their parents

(D) allowing children as young as seven whose parents are divorced to choose the parent who they will live with, likely dissuading those parents

(E) that will allow children as young as seven with divorced parents to choose which parent with whom to live, a policy likely dissuading their parents


as young as seven is describing the children, and should be placed properly in order to avoid modifying the parents

daagh, GMATNinja, mikemcgarry, VeritasKarishma

In option choice B, aren't two independent clauses connected with a comma? Or does the portion of the sentence after comma i.e.- "a policy..", refers to the "law" mentioned in portion of the sentence before comma?

-State lawmakers are considering a law that would allow children as young as seven whose parents are divorced to choose the parent with whom they will live,
- a policy that would likely dissuade those parents from disciplining or punishing their children.

These are not two independent clauses. The first one is but the second one is not. It is a noun modifier. Note the structure - noun + that clause
'that clause' is modifying the noun.

For it to be an independent clause, it needs a verb such as
'the policy would likely dissuade those parents from disciplining or punishing their children'

between C and E, can we use will vs would to eliminate one of those?

pk6969, yes you can. The answer is option B though and there are definitely more things wrong with C and E, both.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.