A recent Human Rights Watch (HRW) report stated that the skyrocketing

Hi!

Doesnt C have Subject-Verb disagreement? Subject "expense" is singular and "are forcing" ??

Option A, D and E have rise which is redundant with skyrocketing. Hence eliminate them all.
In B vs C, Present continuous makes more sense, especially with the clue word "recent" in the non-underlined portion.
Hence C is the better option.

Can anyone please explain that in "c" expense is singular, than how "are" plural helping verb is correct?

It is not correct. Until someone fixes this question, you could try the official question that this question is based on instead.

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

(Redundancy) The obvious error in the given sentence is the necessary repetition of the same idea in the phrase “skyrocketing expenses pharmaceutical expenses have risen,” because “skyrocketing” itself means “rising.” So (A) is wrong.

(D)and (E) also use the words “rises” and “risen” respectively, and can be discarded for that reason alone.

The difference between choices (B) and (C) are in phrases “expense of pharmaceuticals” and “expense for pharmaceuticals” and “are a force for” and “are forcing.”

If you substitute the word “cost’ for ‘expenses’, you can immediately conclude that “cost of pharmaceuticals,” and not “costs for pharmaceuticals,” is the correct phrase. Also, the verb form of a word (“are forcing”) is always considered to be more idiomatic than its noun form (“are a force for”). So, on both these counts, (C) is a better choice than (B).

{If you are still in doubt, apply the rule of choosing the shorter between the two, and you will still get (C) as the answer!}

In "expense are forcing" isn't expense singular ?

Skyrocketing and risen are redundant
That leaves option B and C
B is a prepositional phrase which is less preferred

Hence C

Posted from my mobile device

What is the source of this question?

A recent Human Rights Watch (HRW) report stated that the skyrocketing expense of pharmaceuticals have risen to force third world countries to address absent government policies, insufficient instruction for healthcare workers, and excessively strict drug-control regulations.

(A) expense of pharmaceuticals have risen to force

(B) expense for pharmaceuticals are a force for

(C) expense of pharmaceuticals are forcing

(D) rises in pharmaceutical expenses are forcing

(E) pharmaceuticals expenses have risen to force


I'm pretty sure C is incorrect: Here are my reasons:


I get how skyrocketing and risen count as redundant. But redundancy does not trump S-V agreement. The costs of pharmaceutical analogy doesn't hold true here. Option C would have been correct, if the expense were changed to expenses.
That'd be similar to increased/increasing/rising costs, which requires a plural verb (i recently made a similar mistake).

However, in the absence of the plural expense(s), using rises, although redundant, becomes mandatory, in my opinion.

I'd love to get your inputs generis VeritasKarishma, cos' i really believe 'C' is incorrect.

Just ignore the question. The OE itself is using expense at some places and expenses at others when discussing the same option.

Please edit option C. It should be "expenses" as "expense" can not go with "are".

Answer choice (D) is correct.

Answer choice (A) incorrectly matches subject expense and verb "have risen"; additionally, the preposition "to" incorrectly suggests intent.
Answer choice (B) incorrectly matches subject expense and verb "have risen"; additionally, the preposition "for" changes the meaning to suggest that expense rises are being used by the third world countries.
Answer choice (C) incorrectly matches subject expense and verb "are forcing"
Answer choice (E) incorrectly uses the preposition "to force," suggesting that the expenses are rising in order to compel third world countries "to address ..."