The federal rules aimed at protecting human subjects of

[JbhB682]

Hi Experts - just wanted to focus on option C only ( I was able to eliminate A / B / D easily)

Can I eliminate C because of parallelism between the X and Y elements, specifically the moods

- X element : indicative mood

whereas

- Y element : command subjunctive mood

If parallelism is to be followed, the X element and the Y element have be BOTH in the command subjunctive mood or alternatively,
the X and Y element has be in the indicative mood

Is this a legitimate way to eliminate C using parallelism ?

[esledge]

Hi Experts - just wanted to focus on option C only ( I was able to eliminate A / B / D easily)

Can I eliminate C because of parallelism between the X and Y elements, specifically the moods

- X element : indicative mood

whereas

- Y element : command subjunctive mood

If parallelism is to be followed, the X element and the Y element have be BOTH in the command subjunctive mood or alternatively,
the X and Y element has be in the indicative mood

Is this a legitimate way to eliminate C using parallelism ?

Yes, I'd say so. The smallest change you could make to correct (C) is switching "are" to "be" so that it's command subjunctive:
The rules ... were established to ensure that:
(1) patients be warned about risks
and
(2) a panel evaluate the experiment.

As-is, the "are" at the beginning of (C) sets the reader up to expect a present tense verb in the second half, so with that interpretation, "an independent panel evaluate" appears to have a subject-verb disagreement (should be "evaluates," singular).

In summary, yes, parallelism (along with choice of verb tense and mood within the parallelism) is the big issue in (C).

[JbhB682]

Hi Experts - focussing on E -- i understand the usage of "would" in the Y element because the Y element is in the past tense and the Y element is no longer true as of today May 9th 2021 (as indicated by was conducted)

But was conducted is only referring to the Y element.

How can we be so sure that the X element is not continuing as of today ?

If the X element is continuing upto today or true as of today May 9th 2021 - then the usage of "would" in the X element specifically is not appropriate

[esledge]

Hi Experts - focussing on E -- i understand the usage of "would" in the Y element because the Y element is in the past tense and the Y element is no longer true as of today May 9th 2021 (as indicated by was conducted)

But was conducted is only referring to the Y element.

How can we be so sure that the X element is not continuing as of today ?

If the X element is continuing upto today or true as of today May 9th 2021 - then the usage of "would" in the X element specifically is not appropriate

The "would" is conditional, so it may never happen (now or in the past or ever)! The conditional is for unlikely (or even impossible) situations or for wishful thinking. Even though it's past tense ("would" is the past tense of "will"), we are still talking about the unlikeliness of the action NOW.

If I were you, I would apply for the scholarship. (I want you to do this, but there's no guarantee you will, and you haven't yet.)
If I knew the code, I would never tell you .
If he won the lottery, he would quit his job.
If I were an astronaut, I would want to walk on the Moon. (improbable, to put it mildly)

In short, the timeline should be less of a hangup when an action is hypothetical. Here's the parallel structure in (E), visually broken up.

The federal rules aimed at protecting human subjects of medical experiments were established to ensure:
(1) that patients would be warned of potential risks
and
(2) that an independent panel would evaluate the experiment before it was conducted.

The fact that both parts have "would" makes (E) more parallel than any other choice, so I'd focus on that.

[JbhB682]

Thank you Emily - just one question -- does before it was conducted. which is outside the underline -- does it apply to both elements

a) would be warned of potential risks
and
b) an independent panel would evaluate the experiment

My understanding is "Yes"

Both elements (a and b above) are being modified by before it was conducted.

[esledge]

Yes. The parallelism between the two clauses helps make this connection, as does the fact that "it" in the "before..." modifier refers to "the experiment" in the second clause.

Edit to add: (Also, just logic/meaning: it doesn't help to wait to warn patients of risks until during or after the experiment.)