At a time when narrowly won presidential elections seem more the rule

Question

Project SC Butler: Day 188 Sentence Correction (SC2) 
 For SC butler Questions  Click Here

At a time when narrowly won presidential elections seem more the rule than the exception,  the proliferation of small third parties would have  a bargaining power that few of them have ever enjoyed before.

A) the proliferation of small third parties would have

B) the number of small third parties have

C) the existence of small third parties has

D) the proliferation of small third parties has

E) small third parties have

generis · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

• HIGHLIGHTS

proliferation is a rapid increase or fast growth
-- "proliferation" is a singular noun that takes a singular verb
-- in the noun phrase proliferation of third parties, "proliferation" is the subject—not parties. These nouns are similarly singular:
The expansion of the building is going well.
A group of tourists is on my last nerve. (Vernacular. The tourists are annoying, but the group of tourists IS annoying.)

MEANING
In the U.S. very close Presidential races between the two major parties have become more common. Third parties never win. But they "steal" voters from the two major parties; third parties have a lot of bargaining power because if they steal enough votes from one major party, its candidate loses.

This story is true: In the 1999 (2000) U.S. presidential election Al Gore won the national popular vote.
But states' votes in the electoral college determine the winner. In Florida, Al Gore lost to George Bush by . . . 537 votes. The state of Florida, and thus the presidential win, went to Bush.

THE PROMPT

Quote:

At a time when narrowly won presidential elections seem more the rule than the exception, the proliferation of small third parties would have a bargaining power that few of them have ever enjoyed before.

THE OPTIONS

Quote:

A) At a time when narrowly won presidential elections seem more the rule than the exception, the proliferation of small third parties would have a bargaining power that few of them have ever enjoyed before.

• absurd meaning: proliferation does not have bargaining power. Proliferation is rapid growth
• "them" is plural. "proliferation" is singular
• no reason exists to use "would have." Wrong verb tense. We use "would" to speculate in hypothetical or conditional situations.
Typically, we use "would have" in the sense of regret: if you had called me earlier than you did, I would have come immediately! (But you did not call me earlier and I did not come immediately, though I wish I could have done so.)
Eliminate A

Quote:

B) At a time when narrowly won presidential elections seem more the rule than the exception, the number of small third parties have a bargaining power that few of them have ever enjoyed before.

• absurd meaning: the number of third parties did not have bargaining power
• THE number of is always singular (NOTE: A number of is always plural)
-- the number of [singular]. . . have [plural] -- subject verb disagreement

Eliminate B

Quote:

C) At a time when narrowly won presidential elections seem more the rule than the exception, the existence of small third parties has/i] a bargaining power that few of them have ever enjoyed before.

• absurd meaning: the existence [of small third parties] does not have bargaining power
Eliminate C)

Quote:

D) At a time when narrowly won presidential elections seem more the rule than the exception, [i]the proliferation of small third parties has a bargaining power that few of them have ever enjoyed before.

• absurd meaning: proliferation (rapid growth) does not have bargaining power.
• proliferation is singular. The pronoun "them" (plural) should be "its" (singular)

Eliminate D

Quote:

At a time when narrowly won presidential elections seem more the rule than the exception, small third parties have a bargaining power that few of them have ever enjoyed before.

These answers range from very good to outstanding. Lucky aspirants to follow.

As mentioned, I really enjoy the sidebars, distinctive voices and tones, and different methods of teaching. Very well done. Kudos to all.

Doer01 · Answer

Hi folks,
 IMO E.
SV agreement jumps out straight in A, the proliferation(singular)-have(plural), & B, the number(singular)- have(plural). Incorrect
Second, mere existence or proliferation of something cannot have bargaining power. if it were give instead of have, then the meaning would have been correct. So we can rule C & D out. This leaves us with option E and it is correct.

kunaldutt15 · Answer

At a time when narrowly won presidential elections seem more the rule than the exception,  the proliferation of small third parties would have  a bargaining power that few of them have ever enjoyed before.

A) the proliferation of small third parties would have
  Parties themselves having a bargaining power makes way more sense than their proliferation does.
Also, I think it would be more suitable to use a simple present tense than "would have".
Incorrect.

B) the number of small third parties have
  "The number...have" is incorrect. "The number" is always singular. "A number" is always plural.
Incorrect.

C) the existence of small third parties has
  Parties have a bargaining power not their existence.
Incorrect.

D) the proliferation of small third parties has
  Same as option A and C.
Incorrect

E) small third parties have
  Correct.

philippi · Answer

Focusing on the meaning:

something has a bargaining power

Neither the proliferation nor the number and existence can have a bargaining power, only the third parties themselves can.

Moreover, as the sentence continues, it states that "few of them", which refers to the ones having the bargaining power. So it has to be plural. Only B and E are, whereas B for the reason mentioned before is out.

Additionally, B would be out anyways since "the number" and "have" has a subject verb agreement error.

the number has or a number have.

Hope its clear.

Shishou · Answer

generis  you create fantastic questions

At a time when narrowly won presidential elections seem more the rule than the exception, the proliferation of small third parties would have a bargaining power that few of them have ever enjoyed before.

A) the proliferation of small third parties would have  How can proliferation have more power. it's the small parties that should have the power not the proliferation. 
the verb would have is not the right verb. the whole sentence is meant to be in the present tense and the verb should be in the present tense

B) the number of small third parties have
  How can the actual number of parties have more power. it should be the parties themselves.Very tricky

C) the existence of small third parties has
  how can the existence have power. the subject is misconstrued here. it should be the parties themselves not their existence.

D) the proliferation of small third parties has
  Like A,B and C we have an illogical subject. The proliferation can not wield 
power-the parties do.

E) small third parties have   Ah, yes. The subject and verb tense are both logical here. This is the right answer

Answer is E.

suchithra · Answer

This Question tests the understanding of meaning of the sentence and Subject verb agreement. Also the antecedent of them should match the subject

A) the proliferation of small third parties would have
Proliferation have bargaining power? Doesn't make sense with the meaning and with the Subject Verb agreement.

B) the number of small third parties have
The number of parties have bargaining power? A number of parties would have sounded better. The number of is Singular

C) the existence of small third parties has
Existence of bargaining power? Not right

D) the proliferation of small third parties has
Same as A. but SV is corrected here.

E) small third parties have
Correct

Answer is E

mykrasovski · Answer

Quick read-through shows that the sentence tests meaning and logical construction. The idea of the sentence is that these days the presidential elections are quite tight (say, some years ago a winner could gather 70% of votes and a runner-up would get 20% of votes only, while today the difference between the winner and the "looser" is very tiny) and small parties have gained considerable bargaining power that they have not had in the past.

A)  the proliferation of small third parties would have
Proliferation cannot have bargaining power. Small parties can. This option is out.

B)   the number of  small third  parties   have 
For starters, there is a Subject Verb error. The number of parties ... has. Also, the number of parties cannot enjoy power. A number of parties can.

C)  the existence of small third parties has
The existence of parties cannot enjoy power. This makes no sense.

D)  the proliferation of small third parties has
This option is out for the same reason as (A).

E)  small third parties have
This option is concise and delivers proper meaning, i.e. small parties have gained power.

snoep · Answer

At a time when narrowly won presidential elections seem more the rule than the exception, the proliferation of small third parties would have a bargaining power that few of them have ever enjoyed before.

narrowly won -> narrowly modifies the verb won; it means winning with small margin.

A)  the proliferation  of small third parties would  have 
 Sub-verb agreement error, hence eliminate A

B)  the number  of small third parties  have 
 Sub-Verb agreement error, hence eliminate B

C)  the existence  of small third parties  has 
 There is no sub-verb agreement in this choice. but, the existence of parties has bargaining power, which means, because small third parties exist that has a bargaining power. not really. its not logical.

D)  the proliferation  of small third parties  has 
 there is sub-verb agreement in this choice. the proliferation means rapid increase or growth of parties has bargaining power? its not logical

E) small third  parties   have 
 there is no sub-verb agreement error in this choice. we could say there are small third parties have bargaining power in the view of when elections are narrowly won..

E is the best!

eakabuah · Answer

Meaning: Within a certain period of time, presidential elections were frequently won narrowly. Something has or some entities have a bargaining power that few of them have ever enjoyed before. We can also deduce from the tone of the sentence that the presidential elections seem to be two-horse races. From the meaning, I expect the something or the entities to be either participants in the presidential elections or key stakeholders in such elections. With this in mind, let's look at the options.

Option A: At a time when narrowly won presidential elections seem more the rule than the exception, the proliferation of small third parties would have a bargaining power that few of them have ever enjoyed before.
It does not make sense to say that the proliferation of small third parties would have a bargaining power. We are expecting a concrete noun. An entity or stakeholder in the presidential elections. The Small third parties themselves seem more logical to have a bargaining power. We can eliminate option A.

Option B: At a time when narrowly won presidential elections seem more the rule than the exception, the number of small third parties have a bargaining power that few of them have ever enjoyed before.
First of all, there is a subject-verb agreement error in this option. The singular subject the number has a plural verb have. This is not correct. A singular verb has is required. But of more importance to me is the fact it is illogical for the number of small third parties to have a bargaining power. This is hogwash. Eliminate option B as well.

Option C: At a time when narrowly won presidential elections seem more the rule than the exception, the existence of small third parties has a bargaining power that few of them have ever enjoyed before.
The existence of small parties cannot have a bargaining power. This is balderdash. Eliminate option C.

Option D: At a time when narrowly won presidential elections seem more the rule than the exception, the proliferation of small third parties has a bargaining power that few of them have ever enjoyed before.
Just as in option A, option D says the proliferation of small third parties has a bargaining power. This is fiddle-faddle. Eliminate option D.

Option E: At a time when narrowly won presidential elections seem more the rule than the exception, small third parties have a bargaining power that few of them have ever enjoyed before.
Small third parties have a bargaining power. Correct. Finally, we've got something that we anticipate based on the meaning of the sentence.

PS: This is my attempt to be a bit funny

I hope I have not used any of the above words out of context. In case I did, please take it on a lighter note.

TheNightKing · Answer

Question to be asked: Who/What has the bargaining power? Answer: Small third parties. Only E says that. Straight answers.

Other Issues:

A) the proliferation of small third parties  would have  - There is no need of the conditional future tense.

B) the number of small third parties  have   - If it is the number of small third parties then the verb should be "has"

C) the  existence  of small third parties has - Changes the meaning but corrects the singular verb.

D) the proliferation of small third parties has -  Comes closest to being the right answer but misses on the intended meaning

E) small third parties have

Raxit85 · Answer

Imo. E

At a time when narrowly won presidential elections seem more the rule than the exception, the proliferation of small third parties would have a bargaining power that few of them have ever enjoyed before.

This question checks SVA and meaning clarity error. Most of the incorrect option changes the meaning

A)  the proliferation of small third parties would have  - the proliferation of x would have a bargaining power??? How?? changes the meaning. Here, usage of would is also nonsensical. SVA error, the proliferation...has (not have)

B)  the number of small third parties have  - the no. of x...must have singular verb, i.e. has

C)  the existence of small third parties has  - the existence of x ...has a bargaining power??? How?? changes the meaning.

D)  the proliferation of small third parties has  - the same issue as option A

E) small third parties have - Sounds elegant and concise.

SonGoku · Answer

At a time when narrowly won presidential elections seem more the rule than the exception, the proliferation of small third parties would have a bargaining power that few of them have ever enjoyed before.

A) the proliferation of small third parties would have

B) the number of small third parties have

C) the existence of small third parties has

D) the proliferation of small third parties has

E) small third parties have 
who has the bargaining power?
the proliferation
the existence
the number
small parties
of all the above the last one seems reasonable.so E is the answer.

generis · Answer

The official explanation has been posted  here

prakhar992 · Answer

• bingo. The parties have the bargaining power. Parties are plural, so "them" is appropriate. The answer is E COMMENTS philippi , welcome to SC Butler.

These answers range from very good to outstanding. Lucky aspirants to follow.

As mentioned, I really enjoy the sidebars, distinctive voices and tones, and different methods of teaching. Very well done. Kudos to all. If we go by the meaning of the sentence, "At a time..", it is talking about some time in the past, shouldn't we use past tense instead of simple present. Please correct me if I am wrong or what i see this question as not a good quality question.

Crytiocanalyst · Answer

At a time when narrowly won presidential elections seem more the rule than the exception,  the proliferation of small third parties would have  a bargaining power that few of them have ever enjoyed before.

A) the proliferation of small third parties would have
THe proliferation in itself is not leading to any power therefore out

B) the number of small third parties have
The number is not having any power , ambiguity in meaning therefore out

C) the existence of small third parties has
has isn't the right usage therefore out

D) the proliferation of small third parties has
Similar reasoning as C

E) small third parties have
THe meaning is perfect therefore our answer

Therefore IMO E

At a time when narrowly won presidential elections seem more the rule

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

At a time when narrowly won presidential elections seem more the rule

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards