The parents of a baby born with spina bifida say that had

TehJay,
As I said, B uses double condition - Which is grammatically wrong.
And about the attitude of parents in question..no comments..we are just here to correct the sentence

pls explain the words which signify the double condition ...the only difference in A and B is in the use of words might and would ...thanx
BTW i picked A

What's grammatically wrong about it? I don't understand what you mean by "double condition." The only difference between the two choices is "might have" vs. "would have" - in (A), if the parents had known, they would have considered doing something, while in (B), if the parents had known, they definitely would have done something. The grammar is the same, but the intent of the parents is different.

If (B) is grammatically incorrect, what needs to be changed to make it correct?

b. had they known (Condition 1) the child would be born with a disabling defect that can result in paralysis, profound learning disabilities and fluid on the brain, they would have (Condition 2)chosen to abort the pregnancy - Wrong. Double condition

To make it grammatically correct we need to remove one conditional statement. Either the first one or the second one. Removing 1st one makes the sentence kinda awkward. So we choose option A.

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what you mean by double condition. I don't see anything wrong with "Had they known... would have." It's the exact same sentence construct as "Had they known... MIGHT have."

If "Had they known... they would have" is an incorrect sentence, how would you reword it to convey the same meaning (that if they had known some piece of information, they MOST DEFINITELY would have done something about it) in a grammatically correct way? And why is that wrong, while saying "Had they known... they might have" (if they had known some piece of information, IT IS POSSIBLE they would have done something about it) is correct?

Not trying to be difficult.. I just don't see the difference here.

Can anyone else explain this then? I just googled this issue and got results agreeing with me that "Had they known... they would have" is perfectly correct grammar...

For sure B changes the meaning, so A is right. I also couldn't understand the double condition logic to eliminate B, by the way.

Posted from my mobile device

I also think B will change the meaning so went for A

I have one Q for piyatiwari : How is it that MIGHT is not a condition and WOULD is one? Could u please clarify?

What is the Source of this question, and are such questions expected where almost 3 choices are gramatically correct ?

Dear Rafi
please cite the source
as it will help us

This topic is not listed as sourced from either GPREP or OG. Is there any OA or OE?
My reckoning is that, in such past conditional sentences , wherein the conditional part is some thing that was missed, meaning that the parent did not somehow know in the past the future problems of the child, a hypothetical setting of missed occurrence , then the main cluse should be expressed in the future modal would. The formulaic application of If X happens/ happened, then Y will happen / would happen is the right form. IMO, therefore the text is flawed by using the speculative modal 'might' and Chocie B is the only logical one that rectifies the error. I see no reason to drop it on grounds of altered intent.

Also I see no difference between A and C in that they are both bad.

Incidentally, and curiously, can somebody cite in GMAT, an instance where the topic has used the modal ‘might’ in its main sentence rather than the definitive ‘would’?

Picked B

But agree that since A is grammatically correct, we should not go for B which alters the meaning

Can someone please help me understand why we are not going with if...then options here? And why we considered "Would have" wrong, it is grammatically correct and makes perfect sense. Eg: If I had wings, I would fly.

Hital , this question is an abject disaster. It is flawed. Four answers are correct. I am going to archive and lock this topic.

Problems? Where to start?

1) The author mistakenly believes that option A determines intended meaning. Option A does not determine intended meaning.
Intended meaning is derived from context. We use all five answer choices to determine intended meaning if need be.
The only thing that distinguishes options A and B are the words might and would. Both are allowed.
Option B is not wrong. It is grammatical. Option A does not determine original or intended meaning.

Maybe this urban legend about option A should get the title "Hydra of SC." [Chop one head off and two grow back.]
Here, as GMATNinja would say, have some examples:
GMATNinja wrote, And for whatever it's worth, there's nothing special about answer choice (A) -- it may or may not convey the correct meaning of the sentence. HERE
More?
Dmitry Farber, here.
More?
Ron Purewal, HERE

2) Inverted clauses are allowed in conditional statements.
-- Option C inverts option A and option D inverts option B. All four are grammatical.
-- Other than E's dumb verb, this question tests absolutely nothing.
-- If option A is correct, then option C is correct, too. If B is correct, then D is, too,

Zero conditional, clauses switch places (inverted clauses)
Correct: Correct: If it rains, the ground gets wet.
Correct: The ground gets wet if it rains.

Type 1 - clauses switch places:
Correct: If I see another question with four correct answers, I will holler.
Correct: I will holler if I see another question with four correct answers.

Type 3, clauses switch places
Type 3 conditional is
if THIS thing had happened, then THAT thing would have happened [but neither thing happened]
OR: THAT thing would have happened if THIS thing had happened

Correct: If I had known you were coming, I might have come home earlier.
Correct, inverted: I might have come home earlier if I had known you were coming.

Correct: If I had known you were coming, I would have come home earlier.
Correct, inverted: I would have come home earlier if I had known you were coming.

Options A, B, C, and D are correct

3) Modals in the result clause are allowed in Type 1, 2, 3, and Mixed Coniditonals
The word MIGHT is fine. Type 1, 2, 3, and Mixed Conditionals allow for uncertainty.
(There is a way to make a zero conditional carry a modal, but it does not show up on the GMAT.)

I do not know whether any official examples use might in the result clause. I can't remember.
Modals in conditionals are ingrained in native speaker's brains: we don't notice them.
I do know that using might in the result clause of a Type 3 conditional is grammatical.

4) The difference between A and B is not knowable. Both sentences are grammatical.
Might is uncertain. They might have done X. They might not have done X.
Would is certain. No question, they would have done X.

GMAC will never make you make a choice such as the one between A and B without information.

We don't know the source of this question. It's not official. Let it go.
In fact, please pretend you never saw it.