Test: Subject Verb Agreement- 3 - GMAT MCQ

• The original sentence supplies the plural verb construction “have risen” for the singular subject “price.” Further, the phrase “have risen and will continue to rise” is redundant. Finally, the original sentence uses the plural pronoun “their” to refer to the singular subject “management.”
• (A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
• (B) This answer corrects the pronoun issue, but suffers from the lack of agreement between the subject “the price” and the verb “have risen.” This answer choice also retains the redundant and wordy construction “have risen and will continue to rise.”
• (C) CORRECT. This answer replaces the redundant construction “have risen and will continue to rise” with the more concise “will continue to rise.” This change is possible without any loss of content, since using “will continue to rise” already implies that the price of oil and fuel components has been increasing to date. Further, this modification resolves the subject-verb agreement issue in the original sentence. Finally, this answer choice replaces the plural pronoun “their” with the article “the,” thus remedying the original lack of agreement between the noun “management” and pronoun “their.”
• (D) While supplying the appropriate singular verb “has risen” for the singular subject “the price,” this choice is wordy and retains the incorrect pronoun “their” from the original sentence.
• (E) While resolving the issues of redundancy and subject-verb agreement, this answer uses the plural pronoun “their” to refer to the singular noun “management."

• The original sentence states that "a higher interest rate is only one of the factors...that keeps..." The clause "that keeps the housing market from spiraling out of control" is describing the word "factors." Since "factors" is plural noun and "keeps" agrees with singular nouns, we need to find a sentence that replaces "keeps" with "keep". Also, "like it did earlier in the decade" is incorrect. When comparing clauses (i.e., a phrase containing a subject and a verb), we must use "as" instead of "like." For example, "She sings like her mother" and "She sings as her mother does" are both correct, but "She sings like her mother does" is not.
• (A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
• (B) CORRECT. This choice remedies the verb agreement issue by using the singular "keep." It also correctly changes the comparison word from "like" to "as."
• (C) This subject-verb issue with "keeps" remains.
• (D) The subject-verb issue is remedied, however, the comparison is a faulty one. "Like" is used to compare two nouns and here the second part of the comparison is "earlier in the decade." The phrase "it did" is needed here to logically complete the comparison, in which case, "as" must be used to draw the comparison.
• (E) The subject-verb issue is remedied, however, the word "as" should be used instead of "like."

This sentence correctly matches the singular subject "Daughters of the American Revolution" with the singular verb "admits." Note that the subject is the organization (singular) rather than the many individual “daughters” (plural). "Only" correctly modifies "women who can prove…," indicating that neither men nor women without genealogical ties to an American patriot are admitted as members of the organization.
(A) CORRECT. This sentence is correct as written.
(B) This choice incorrectly matches the singular subject "Daughters of the American Revolution" with the plural verb "admit."
(C) In this choice, the adverb "only" has been deleted from the sentence, changing the meaning. The sentence now implies that the organization may admit the people mentioned (women who can prove lineal descent….) as well as other people not mentioned. The original intent of the sentence was to indicate the eligibility requirement for membership.
(D) This choice incorrectly matches the singular subject "Daughters of the American Revolution" with the plural verb "admit."
(E) In this choice, the adverb "only" modifies "from a patriot of the American Revolution,” nonsensically indicating that to be eligible for

The primary issue with this question is subject-verb agreement. The subject is "consumption," which is singular (and note that "consumption" is not underlined, so the subject will be singular in the correct answer). Any verbs
associated with this subject, therefore, also must be singular. In the original sentence, they are both plural ("trigger" and "cause").
(A) This choice is incorrect because it repeats the original sentence.
(B) Although this sentence makes two changes from the original sentence, neither one fixes the subject-verb agreement problem; the singular subject, "consumption," is still paired with two plural verbs, "trigger" and "cause."
(C) CORRECT. This choice correctly pairs the singular subject, "consumption," with two plural verbs, "triggers" and "causes."
(D) This sentence corrects the first of the two verbs ("triggers") by making it singular to match the singular subject, "consumption," but the second verb ("cause") is still plural.
(E) This sentence corrects the second of the two verbs ("causes") by making it singular to match the singular subject, "consumption," but the first verb ("trigger") is still plural.

The “government,” the singular subject of the underlined clause, requires the singular verb “justifies” and the singular pronoun “its.” Additionally, since “medical care and schooling” are examples of services, they should be delineated by “such as” rather than “such like.”
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) This choice incorrectly uses the plural pronoun "justifies" to refer to government. Additionally, it is redundant to state “too costly and expensive."
(C) The plural verb “justify” and the plural pronoun “their” incorrectly refer to the singular “government.” Also, basic services “like” medical care and schooling is unidiomatic.
(D) The plural verb “justify” incorrectly refers to the singular “government.” Additionally, “too costly and expensive” is redundant, and medical care and schooling are two services rather than “a service.”
(E) CORRECT. The singular subject "government" is properly accompanied by the singular verb "justifies" and the singular pronoun "its." Furthermore, the phrase “such basic services as medical care and schooling” is idiomatically correct.

The singular subject in the original sentence, “the governor’s team,” agrees with the
singular verb phrase “has not been.”
(A) CORRECT. This choice is correct as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) The subject-verb relationship is incorrect. The singular subject of the sentence, “the governor’s team,” does not agree with the plural verb phrase “have not been.”
(C) The subject-verb relationship is incorrect. The singular subject of the sentence, “the governor’s team,” does not agree with the plural verb phrase “have not been.” Also, the subject pronoun “she” has no antecedent. The subject pronoun “she” cannot refer back to the possessive noun, “governor’s.” Only possessive pronouns, such as
“her,” can refer to possessive nouns. Finally, the phrase “her proposal on controversial education reform” changes the original meaning. This phrasing implies that the education reform is controversial. However, it is clear in the original sentence that it is the governor’s proposal that is controversial, not education reform itself.
(D) The subject pronoun “she” has no antecedent. The subject pronoun “she” cannot refer back to the possessive noun, “governor’s.” Only possessive pronouns, such as “her,” can refer to possessive nouns.
(E) The subject pronoun “she” has no antecedent. The subject pronoun “she” cannot refer back to the possessive noun, “governor’s.” Only possessive pronouns, such as “her,” can refer to possessive nouns. Also, the phrase “her proposal on controversial reform in education” changes the original meaning. This phrasing implies that the education reform is controversial. However, it is clear in the original sentence that it is the governor’s proposal that is controversial, not education reform itself. Finally, the phrase "to make comments" is not as concise as the original "for comment."

The original sentence contains several errors. First, it is incorrect to refer to "the amount of car accidents" because "amount of" is used only with uncountable quantities, such as “amount of salt.” Since accidents are countable, the correct quantity reference is "the number of car accidents." Second, the original sentence
compares “the amount of accidents” to “accidents caused by faulty wiring.” The correct (i.e., logically and structurally parallel) comparison is between the number of one type of accident and the number of another type of accident. Third, the present perfect "have been relaxed" is incorrectly used. This action occurred exclusively in the
past, so the simple past "were relaxed" is needed.
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) First, it is incorrect to refer to "the amount of car accidents" because "amount of" is used only with uncountable quantities, such as “amount of salt.” Since accidents are countable, the correct quantity reference is "the number of car accidents." Second, this choice compares “the amount of accidents” to “accidents caused by faulty wiring.” The correct (i.e., logically and structurally parallel) comparison is between the number of one type of accident and the number of another type of accident. Finally, the antecedent of the plural pronoun “those” is ambiguous: it could
refer to “car accidents” or “faulty brakes.”
(C) The plural verb “have increased” does not agree with the singular subject “the number.”
(D) This choice compares “the number of car accidents caused by faulty brakes” to “accidents caused by faulty wiring.” The correct (i.e., logically and structurally parallel) comparison is between “the number of car accidents caused by faulty brakes” to “the number of car accidents caused by faulty wiring.” Third, the past perfect "had been relaxed" can only be correctly used to indicate that the regulations were relaxed prior to some other action in the past. In this sentence, there is no other past action, so the use of the past perfect tense cannot be justified and the simple past "were relaxed" should be used instead.
(E) CORRECT. “The number” is correctly used to refer to car accidents, a countable quantity. Also, a logically and structurally parallel comparison is made between “the number of car accidents caused by faulty brakes” to “the number caused by faulty wiring.” Finally, this choice uses the correct simple past “were relaxed.”

The original sentence is correct. The plural verb "are" agrees with the plural subject "engravings". The idiom "of interest to" is correct.
(A) CORRECT. The original sentence is correct as written.
(B) This is incorrect because it uses "are interests...for" instead of the correct idiom. The placement of "both" is awkward.
(C) The placement of "both" distorts the meaning of the sentence, by making it seem as if there are only two Hogarth engravings. "Are...interesting to" sounds casual compared to the preferred idiom.
(D) The singular verb "is" fails to agree with the plural subject "engravings".
(E) The singular verb "is" fails to agree with the plural subject "engravings". The phrase "interesting for" is unidiomatic.

This sentence discusses characteristics of “the banana,” a singular subject. Thus, the plural verb “are” is incorrect. Additionally, the phrase “considered to be” is unidiomatic. In standard written English, “considered” is accompanied by neither a preposition nor a verb. Finally, the relative pronoun “that” makes it seem that a particular banana, rather than bananas in general, contains high levels of potassium.
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) CORRECT. This choice correctly uses the singular verb “is” with the singular subject “banana,” and correctly uses “considered” without an accompanying preposition or verb. Additionally, the relative pronoun “which” properly introduces a non-restrictive clause that indicates all bananas, rather than one specific banana, contain high levels of potassium.
(C) The plural verb “contain” is incorrectly paired with the singular subject “banana.” Additionally, “considered to be” is unidiomatic.
(D) The relative pronoun “which” is incorrectly used to introduce a restrictive clause. Also, the sentence seems to indicate that certain bananas, rather than all bananas, contain high levels of potassium.
(E) This choice incorrectly uses the unidiomatic “considered to be.”

First, the subject of the main clause is "the increase in unemployment rates," which is singular. Yet, the verb in the main clause is "are forcing," which is plural. Second, "significantly increased retail prices as well as energy costs" is both awkward and unclear. The logical inference is that the energy costs have increased as well, but this
is not clear from the grammar that "significantly increased" modifies "energy costs" in addition to "retail prices." This phrase could also be more elegantly expressed.
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) The subject of the main clause here is "the increase in rates of unemployment," which is singular, but the verb is "have been forcing," which is plural. However, the replacement of "as well as" with "and" is an improvement over the original sentence because it more clearly links "significant increases" and "energy costs."
(C) CORRECT. The subject of the main clause is "the increase in unemployment rates" and the corresponding verb is "is forcing," which are both singular. The phrase "coupled with significant increases in both retail prices and energy costs" is elegant and clearly links "significant increases" to "energy costs" through the use of "both."
(D) The subject of the main clause is "the increase in unemployment rates" and the corresponding verb is "is forcing," which are both singular. However, the phrase "coupled with significantly increased retail prices as well as energy costs" is still awkward and unclear.
(E) The subject of the main clause is "the increase in unemployment rates" and the corresponding verb is "had been forcing," which are both singular. However, "had been forcing" is in the past perfect tense, which requires two past actions, one of which must occur earlier than than the other. This is not the case here. Moreover, the
correct idiom is "both X and Y" and not "both X as well as Y."

The original sentence supplies the incorrect plural verb “are” to refer to the singular subject “growth.”
(A) This answer choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) This answer choice uses the unidiomatic construction “numbers of vehicles” rather than the appropriate idiom “the number of vehicles.” Furthermore, the plural verb “are” does not agree with the singular subject “growth.”
(C) CORRECT. This answer choice supplies the correct singular verb “is” to refer to the singular subject “growth.” In addition, this choice uses the appropriate idiomatic construction “the number of vehicles.”
(D) This answer choice uses the unidiomatic construction “numbers of vehicles” rather than the appropriate idiom “the number of vehicles.”
(E) In this answer choice, the plural verb “are” does not agree with the singular subject “growth.” Furthermore, the possessive phrase “vehicles’ numbers” is awkward and unidiomatic. The appropriate idiom is “the number of vehicles.”

The original sentence contains two flaws. First, "what had become known as the Underground Railroad" is incorrectly in the past perfect tense ("had become"). The past perfect is used to describe a past event that occurred before another past event.
In this case, however, the "Underground Railroad" did not become known as such (or known as anything at all) until after it was created, and there is no past action that occurs afterward that would justify the use of the past perfect tense. Second, the subject of the sentence is "Harriet Tubman" only; phrases such as "along with,"
"accompanied by," and "as well as" do not create plural subjects (only "and" allows for the formation of a plural subject). Yet, the verb used in the original sentence is "were," which suggests a plural subject. Instead, the correct verb form "was" is necessary in order to agree with the singular subject "Harriet Tubman."
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) This choice corrects the verb tense by replacing the past perfect with the conditional "would become known" (used to express the future from the point of view of the past: "I said yesterday that I would go to the store today.") However, it does not correct the subject-verb agreement problem (retaining "were").
(C) This choice does not correct the verb tense issue, retaining the incorrect past perfect tense. It does correct the subject-verb agreement by replacing "were" with "was."
(D) This choice uses the incorrect and awkward verb phrase "has been becoming," which incorrectly suggests that the labeling of the Underground Railroad continues to the present day. However, it does correct the subject-verb agreement by replacing "were" with "was."
(E) CORRECT. This choice corrects the verb tense by replacing "had become" with "would become." Moreover, it corrects the subject-verb agreement issue by replacing "were" with "was."

The main subject of the sentence, the singular “the number,” requires a singular verb to maintain subject-verb agreement. Therefore, the plural “have decreased” is incorrect.
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) The main subject of the sentence, the singular “the number”, requires a singular verb to maintain subject-verb agreement. Therefore, the plural “have been reduced” is incorrect. In addition, “been reduced” is a passive verb, implying that some external force acted to reduce the number of telegrams delivered. The active verb “decreased”
would be preferable, since it indicates simply that the change occurred.
(C) CORRECT. The main verb of the sentence, the singular “has decreased,” maintains subject-verb agreement with the singular “the number.”
(D) The passive voice “been reduced” implies that some external force acted to reduce the number of telegrams delivered. The more concise active voice “decreased” is preferable, since it indicates simply that the change occurred. The phrase “down to” is redundant of “reduced.”
(E) The phrase “down to” is redundant of “decreased.”

The original sentence contains a subject-verb agreement issue. The singular noun "analysis" does not agree with the plural verb "provide."
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) CORRECT. This choice correctly uses the singular verb "provides" to agree with the singular noun "analysis."
(C) This choice contains incorrect subject-verb agreement. The singular noun "analysis" does not agree with the plural verb "provide." In addition, the singular noun "animal" does not agree with the plural verb "use."
(D) This choice correctly uses the singular verb "provides" to agree with the singular noun "analysis." However, the singular noun "animal" does not agree with the plural verb "use."
(E) This choice contains incorrect subject-verb agreement. The singular noun "analysis" does not agree with the plural verb "provide." Moreover, the use of the phrase "animals, like humans" sets up a comparison between animals and humans. This nonsensically suggests that humans are not a type of animal. Moreover, the
comparison distorts the meaning of the sentence by suggesting that all animals use a hierarchical structure of communication. In contrast, the use of the phrase "animals other than humans" in the original sentence implies that some animals (though not necessarily all animals), in addition to humans, use a hierarchical structure of
communication.

The original sentence supplies the correct singular verb “is likely” for the singular subject “the number of graduates.” The sentence also employs the concise and idiomatic form “is likely to double.”
(A) CORRECT. This answer choice is correct as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) This answer choice supplies the incorrect plural verb “are likely” that does not agree with the singular subject “the number of graduates.” Further, this answer choice uses the wordy and unidiomatic construction “to increase by twice” rather than the concise and idiomatic form “to double.”
(C) This answer choice uses the incorrect plural verb “are likely” that does not agree with the singular subject “the number of graduates.”
(D) While the verb construction “will double” is more concise than the original “is likely to double,” this change incorrectly alters the meaning of the sentence by implying that the expected increase in the interest in “a career in financial services” is certain rather than merely “likely,” as stated in the original sentence.
(E) This answer choice employs the wordy and unidiomatic construction “to increase by twice” rather than the concise and idiomatic form “to double.” Further, the verb “will increase” implies that the expected increase in the interest in “a career in financial services” is certain rather than merely “likely,” as stated in the original sentence. This change incorrectly alters the original meaning of the sentence.