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

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.