The French Revolution of 1830, also known as the July Revolution or th

The point is that if it is NOW true that something WILL happen, then when we talk about this time in the past tense, we say it WOULD happen. This doesn't depend on whether the thing that WOULD happen has already happened. It's correct to say "T Rex may have been the terror of the Cretaceous, but like all the other dinosaurs, it would be wiped out in the K-T mass extinction." Certainly, this has already happened! We're simply saying that AT THE TIME that T Rex was the terror of the Cretaceous, it was true that it WOULD LATER be wiped out. In that sense, it's almost like a future version of the past perfect. We say "HAD BEEN" to refer to something that was true BEFORE our past event, and "WOULD" to refer to something that eventually happened, but had not yet happened when our past event occurred.

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION


THE PROMPT
• I detect no errors.
• Strip the sentence of nonessential modifiers to see whether the sentence still makes sense:
The French Revolution of 1830 . . . saw the overthrow of King Charles X . . . and the ascent of his cousin Louis-Philippe, who himself would be deposed after 18 precarious years on the throne.
That sentence works.
Meaning? The French Revolution of 1830 included the overthrow of King Charles X and the ascent of Charles's cousin Louis-Philippe; after 18 precarious years on the thrown, Louis-Philippe was also deposed.

THE OPTIONS

• Option A seems fine.

• comma splice
-- the word his after the highlighted comma creates a new sentence.
-- two clauses (sentences) must be joined by more than a comma -- a conjunction is required
Eliminate B

• his cousin who should logically refer to Louis-Philippe, but Louis-Philippe does not appear—only Louis Philippe's ascent.
• the actual referent of his cousin who is ascent, a construction that makes no sense. An ascent is not a cousin.
Eliminate C

• reflexive pronouns such as himself are used to refer to the noun that immediately precedes the reflexive pronoun. That noun is deposition.
• a deposition is a thing. The reflexive pronoun himself must refer to a person.
• absurd meaning: this option implies that the deposition spent 18 years on the throne. (Um, no. Louis-Philippe spent 18 years on the throne.)
Eliminate D

• himself is a person and cannot refer to the non-human pronoun which.
• referent problem similar to that in (C): himself refers illogically to ascent rather than Louis-Philippe
Eliminate E

Reflexive pronouns in English are very effective. English does not repeat subject references very often.
Reflexive pronounse are most commonly used when the doer and recipient of the action are the same person or thing:
He gave himself an epinephrine shot.

In this case, the reflexive pronoun says, "and it happened to him, too!"
That is, the reflexive pronoun himself in option A (who himself would be deposed) is a very efficient way to say that what happened to Charles X also happened to Louis-Philippe.



Such variety in these good answers!
Variety is good.

Some of these answers are hilarious (in a good way -- they made me laugh).
I am glad to see people showing their personalities.
All of the answers display the right mindset: Dear GMAC, I am not fooled. I win. The End.
The depth and breadth of understanding evident on this thread is impressive.
Nice work. Kudos to all.

In option A, isn't the use of 'who' incorrect ? It should be whom right ? As cousin didn't carry out the act of deposing himself, he wasn't the doer of the action generis, GMATNinja, if any of you can help

DmitryFarber @SOVIK19 IF YOU CAN HELP

In option A, isn't the use of 'who' incorrect ? It should be whom right ? As cousin didn't carry out the act of deposing himself, he wasn't the doer of the action generis, GMATNinja, if any of you can help