Among the many reasons for his defeat in the election was his arrogant

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION



• Split #1: WERE/WAS

When you see the 2-3 split between was and were and you are trying to figure out whether the subject is singular or plural, be sure to read the non-underlined part of the sentence again.

The subject is plural because there were two reasons that the candidate was defeated.
We can rearrange the sentence a bit:
The candidate's arrogant assumption about XYZ and his unwarranted attack on his opponent were two reasons (among many reasons) for the candidate's defeat in the election.

"Among the reasons" could produce a singular subject: Among the reasons for her departure was the toxic atmosphere created by a verbally abusive CEO.
But in our sentence, the subject is plural.

Options A and E incorrectly use the singular verb was.
Eliminate A and E.
(Option E also incorrectly uses the singular verb was after the plural word constituents)

• Split #2: economic conditions / economical conditions / economics

The phrase economic conditions is the best noun to describe what a political constituency would be interested in.

Economic conditions are conditions that derive from the state of the economy or that are related to financial or business matters.
Rates of inflation, interest, and unemployment, for example, shape economic conditions.

Economical means frugal, inexpensive, or not wasteful. Wind power in the desert is an economical energy source.

Option (C) incorrectly uses economical conditions.
The conditions are not frugal.

Eliminate C.

→ Economics in option (D)?.
Possibly okay, not nearly as good as "economic conditions," and not an issue we need to decide because (D) has a bigger problem.

Economics usually means the study of economics.
On rare occasions the word can mean "pertaining to the material prosperity" of a region.
In a political context, the phrase "economic conditions" is more appropriate than the word "economics," but we need not decide.
We can dismiss (D) for other reasons or compare it to (B).

• Split #3: VERB TENSE

If all else is equal, simple past tense is preferred (as is simple present tense).
No reason exists to prefer "would be" over the simple "were."
The better description for a past event is "He assumed that his constituents were incapable."
He did not did hypothesize and he kept assuming that they were incapable.

If that split is too difficult, compare (B) and (D).
Option B uses the simple past tense were and does not muck around with the phrase "economic conditions," whereas (D) includes a questionable shift in verb tense and the word "economics."

Eliminate D.

The best answer is B.

COMMENTS

I am glad to see some familiar names that I haven't seen for a while and as always, glad to see regular posters.

Future aspirants should read the whole thread: the approaches are different, sometimes subtly so, and reading an answer written from a few perspectives is invaluable.

Happy kudos!
_________________

My answer is (B). It took me 2 minutes and 10 seconds.

The underlined part should start with "was".

In reading original sentence, I did find "was" rather strange. But because it was not underlined, I have to reason that his arrogant assumption is the subject and the appositive clause "that his ... " should extend to the very end of the sentence. So (A) is incorrect.

Then, I realized that "was" is underlined. So I can rule out (A) and (E).

(C) The use of assumptions is uncalled for. There is just one assumption.
(D) The use of "would" may be appropriate in conditional sentence, but the sentence here is not conditional sentence.

(B) it is.

Among the many reasons for his defeat in the election was his arrogant assumption that his constituents were incapable of understanding economic conditions and his unwarranted attack on his chief opponent.

Among the many reasons ... were his arrogant assumption... and his unwarranted attack ... (Correct one)

A. was his arrogant assumption that his constituents were incapable of understanding economic conditions-- Wrong

B. were his arrogant assumption that his constituents were incapable of understanding economic conditions--Correct

C. were his arrogant assumptions that his constituents were incapable of understanding economical conditions (Meaning change --Should be "economic conditions") -Wrong

D. were his arrogant assumption that his constituents would be incapable of understanding economics --Wrong usage of "Would be " and "economics"--Wrong

E. was the arrogant assumption that his constituents was incapable of understanding economic conditions --Wrong

The answer is B.

The subject is plural (Among the many reasons) so we have to use a plural verb. A and E are out.
Here the assumption is one that is his constituents were incapable of understanding economic conditions. So C is out.

Now we are left with B and D.
D is a hypothetical sentence which does not make sense here as the reasons described here in the sentence actually took place, so use would be is incorrect. Economic conditions is a correct modifier. Economical means thrifty. So D is out .
B is our answer

MEANING
Among the many reasons for his defeat 'were' (1) his assumption [s] that they 'were' [p]… and (2) his attack.
Economical means cheap; Economic means the economy or relating to economics.

(A) "the reasons [p]…was [s] (1)… and (2)… [p]" sva;
(C) "economical" unintended; "assumptions [p]…were incapable [s]" sva;
(D) "would be" wrong tense; "economics" implies the subject economics, not the countries economy;
(E) "was…was" sva;

Ans (B)

Hi,
IMO B.
Statement given sounds correct until you hit that and, and it changes everything and then you realize "Ah! another parallel structure question?"
So, there were two reasons among many for his defeat in the election.
1. his arrogant assumption that his constituents were incapable of understanding economic conditions,
2. his unwarranted attack on his chief opponent
Above reasons rule A & E out for using singular helping verb was
OUT

economic vs economical vs economics:
Economic is something related to consumption, production etc and how these factors are co-related
Economical is inexpensive, and
Economics is study of above stated entities.
This differentiation takes care of C & D.
OUT

This leaves us with B and indeed it is correct.

_________________

2 reasons are stated, so the verb should be 'were'. We are left with B, C, D. only one assumption is given, so eliminate C. The sentence requires a past tense, not a future. so were incapable is better than would be incapable. So B is my answer.

Among the many reasons for his defeat in the election was his arrogant assumption that his constituents were incapable of understanding economic conditions and his unwarranted attack on his chief opponent.

Meaning: There are many reasons for his defeat in the election but the sentence focused on two. Among the reasons were: 1. his arrogant assumption his constituents were incapable of understanding economic conditions and 2. his unwarranted attack on his chief opponent.

There are three main splits in this sentence.
Split #1: subject-verb agreement: were X and Y vs was X and Y.
Split #2: meaning: would be incapable of understanding vs were incapable of understanding
Split #3: meaning: economical conditions vs economic conditions.

Based on split #1, we have two reasons for the defeat of the candidate in the election. The two reasons are connected with and, implying a plural verb is required. Was X and Y is therefore incorrect. We can eliminate A and E.

Split #2: This is a report of an event that took place in the past. The simple past tense were incapable of understanding is appropriate and conveys the right meaning of the sentence. Eliminate D based on the wrongful use of would be.

Split #3: Economical is not appropriate in the context. We can say a hybrid car is economical in terms of fuel consumption. In this context, we are interested in economic conditions to mean conditions related to business or trade. Eliminate C.

We are left with B as the best answer.

A. was his arrogant assumption that his constituents were incapable of understanding economic conditions

B. were his arrogant assumption that his constituents were incapable of understanding economic conditions

C. were his arrogant assumptions that his constituents were incapable of understanding economical conditions

D. were his arrogant assumption that his constituents would be incapable of understanding economics

E. was the arrogant assumption that his constituents was incapable of understanding economic conditions

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of the crucial part of this sentence is that the candidate who lost the election made the arrogant assumption that his constituents were incapable of understanding conditions related to the economy.

Concepts tested here: Subject-Verb Agreement + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• “will” is preferred for referring to events that are certain to happen and “would” is preferred for referring to events that are hypothetical, meaning the use of “would” alongside verbs that express uncertainty (predict, assume, guess, etc.) is redundant.
• Two singular nouns joined by “and” function as one plural noun.

A: Trap. This answer choice incorrectly uses the singular verb "was" to refer to the plural noun phrase "his arrogant assumption...and...his unwarranted attack on his chief opponent"; please remember, two singular nouns joined by “and” function as one plural noun.

B: Correct. This answer choice correctly uses the plural verb "were" to refer to the plural noun phrase "his arrogant assumption...and...his unwarranted attack on his chief opponent". Moreover, Option B correctly uses the plural verb "were" to refer to the plural noun "constituents". Further, Option B uses the phrases "his arrogant assumption" and "understanding economic conditions", conveying the intended meaning - that the candidate who lost the election made one arrogant assumption that his constituents were incapable of understanding certain conditions related to the economy. Besides, Option B is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

C: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through its use of the words "assumptions" and "economical"; the use of these words incorrectly implies that the candidate who lost the election made multiple arrogant assumptions that his constituents were incapable of understanding inexpensive conditions; the intended meaning is that the candidate who lost the election made one arrogant assumption that his constituents were incapable of understanding conditions related to the economy.

D: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through its use of the phrase "understanding economics"; the omission of the word "conditions" incorrectly implies that the candidate who lost the election made the arrogant assumption that his constituents were incapable of understanding the field of economics; the intended meaning is that the candidate who lost the election made the arrogant assumption that his constituents were incapable of understanding certain conditions related to the economy. Further, Option D redundantly uses "would" alongside "assumption"; please remember, he use of “would” alongside verbs that express uncertainty (predict, assume, guess, etc.) is redundant, as "would" is used to refer to hypothetical actions

E: This answer choice incorrectly uses the singular verb "was" to refer to the plural noun phrase "the arrogant assumption...and...his unwarranted attack on his chief opponent"; please remember, two singular nouns joined by “and” function as one plural noun. Further, Option E incorrectly uses the singular verb "was" to refer to the plural noun "constituents".

Hence, B is the best answer choice.

Additional Note: Solving this question involves parsing the difference in meaning between the adjectives "economic" and "economical"; please note, "economic" means "related to the economy" and "economical" means "inexpensive".

All the best!
Experts' Global Team
_________________

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________