“Would + Verb” vs. “Were to + Verb”

“If they ___ me this job, I’d turn it down.”
a) would offer
b) were to offer

I had this question in my test lately. The latter is the right answer, but I don’t really get the difference between these two. Could someone explain it?

Answer

If they were to offer me this job, I would turn it down.

This is an example of the Second Conditional, and in its “if-clause”, a “would + verb” construction is not possible.

Second conditional sentences are useful for expressing outcomes that
are completely unrealistic or will not likely happen in the future.

Notice the correct way to structure second conditional sentences is to
use the simple past tense in the if-clause and an auxiliary modal verb
(e.g., could, should, would, might) in the main clause (the one that
expresses the unrealistic or unlikely outcome). (From grammarly.com)

Instead of were to offer, the simple past form offered is also acceptable in this type of conditionals, but it was not included in the OP’s options.

The structure be + infinitive is used to talk about official plans
and arrangements in a formal style.

The structure be + infinitive is common in if-clauses, especially when
the if-clause expresses a pre-condition.

The OP’s sentences is such a sentence in the Second Conditional construction with a past tense verb without a past meaning. It simply shows a hypothetical situation in the present time.

Attribution
Source : Link , Question Author : ktototamov , Answer Author : mahmud k pukayoor