Attraction Errors (& with / as well as)

Here's a moment you'll almost certainly recognise. You're finishing an email at 4:55 on a Friday — something ordinary like The box of samples for the client are on reception — and send it. Five minutes later you re-read it on your phone and the verb looks… off. Was are right? Or should it have been is? You can no longer quite remember why you chose what you chose.

That tiny wobble is an attraction error. Your eye — and your ear — got pulled toward the nearest plural (samples) and the verb followed, even though the real subject was box. One box. These slips show up every working week in reports, covering letters [US: cover letters], status updates and CVs [US: resumes]. And once an intervening phrase is sitting between subject and verb, even careful writers miss them.

The good news is the fix is practical, not mysterious. Nobody's born knowing this. You just need a short checklist for the phrases that look like they're adding a second subject when they aren't — with, as well as, together with and their cousins — and a habit of finding the head noun before you choose the verb.

Before you read on, here's where we're heading. By the end of this article, you'll be able to: - Isolate the true head of a subject when extra material sits between it and the verb. - Catch attraction errors (the suite of tools need updating) before they leave your desk. - Treat with / as well as / together with / along with / in addition to as parenthetical add-ons, never as true and-style compounds. - Handle the one of the candidates who… pattern sensibly, and know where the full relative-clause treatment lives.

Beginner (Foundation)

Start with the unglamorous version — because it's half the mess on real inboxes.

A subject is the person, thing or idea the verb is about. When nothing sits between that noun and the verb, agreement is nearly automatic: The report is ready. The reports are ready. Trouble starts when writers pack in detail:

The report of findings is ready for review.

Subject head = report. One report. Of findings is a prepositional phrase adding content; it is not the subject. Verb = is. (If the terms prepositional phrase or relative clause feel fuzzy, Pillar 3 explains what they structurally are — I'm not going to rebuild that here.)

Same architecture, different nouns:

• A set of keys was left at reception.
• The manager of both departments has approved the plan.
• The results of the survey are in. (head actually is results — plural)

Here's the thing. Under time pressure — a Slack message, a last-minute client note, a form you're typing with one eye on the clock — your brain drops into nearest-noun matching. Plural sits nearest the verb → you produce a plural verb. That pull has a name: attraction error. You're not being careless in some moral sense; you're being human at speed, and I say that as someone who's done it in front of authors who were paying me not to.

The repair habit is almost mechanical. Mentally strip the intervening of… (or on…, for…, in…) phrase and read the skeleton: The report … is ready. If the skeleton sounds right, the full sentence almost always wants that same verb form.

Common Mistake: The list of requirements are attached. Head = list → The list of requirements is attached. Attachment habits copied from spoken English are where this one thrives.

Quick recap: - Verb agrees with the head of the subject, not with a nearby noun inside a phrase. - Material like of keys, of findings, on the agenda is elaborating detail — not a new subject. - Attraction = the verb being "pulled" toward the nearest (often plural) noun. - Strip the middle phrase for one read-through; match what remains.

Intermediate (Development)

Now the false friends — the phrases that feel additive the way and does, but do not create a compound subject.

Contrast these two:

1. The director and the board are attending.
2. The director, along with the board, is attending.

Sentence 1 uses a true compound with and (home territory of Article 5.1 — don't re-learn the and rule here; just keep the contrast in view). Sentence 2's along with the board is parenthetical. Grammatically, the subject is still just the director. Singular verb: is.

Treat every member of this shopworn list the same way:

• with
• together with
• along with
• as well as
• in addition to
• including
• accompanied by

So:

• The proposal, together with the costings [US: cost estimates], has been circulated.
• Our contractor, as well as two subcontractors, is on site from Monday.
• The agenda, including the two new items, remains provisional.
• The CEO, accompanied by the CFO, arrives at ten.

Let's be honest — people write (and say) the plural versions constantly. The manager as well as the team are aware is ordinary corridor English. In plain chat it will rarely cost you a thing. In formal writing — a report for a board, a job application, a published piece, anything that will be judged on correctness — stick to head-noun agreement. Examiners, hiring panels and some clients still apply the formal rule without much forgiveness.

A second, related intermediate pattern shows up a lot in job-application and appraisal prose: "one of the…"

One of the candidates is unavailable. Subject = one → singular. Straightforward.

Then the relative-clause version arrives: She is one of the candidates who have strong sector experience. Inside that clause, formal standard treats who as referring to candidates (plural), so have. Outside the clause your main verb still follows its own subject as usual.

Flip case: She is the only one of the candidates who has security clearance — who here more tightly tracks one. The fuller map of one of… who… and related antecedent problems lives in Article 5.8. If relative-clause agreement is your main fret, go there. If your real enemy is as well as / with / together with sitting mid-sentence, you're already in the right place.

Pro-Tip: Before you hit send on anything semi-formal, scan once for as well as, along with, together with and in addition to. For each hit, confirm the verb only against the noun that sat before the phrase. Thirty seconds; fewer red faces.

Common Mistake: Writing The design, as well as the copy, need a final pass because two things are being mentioned. Mentioning doesn't equal compounding. Head = design → needs. If you truly want a plural, restructure with and: The design and the copy need a final pass.

Quick recap: - And compounds the subject; with / as well as / together with / along with / in addition to / including / accompanied by do not. - Verb number tracks the head noun alone, commas or no commas around the add-on. - Spoken / casual registers often pluralise after these phrases; formal workplace and assessed writing usually shouldn't. - One of the X is… is singular outside the clause; who… inside may take a plural when who ≈ the plural noun — deeper treatment in 5.8.

Advanced (Mastery)

Three or four refinements separate people who know the rule from people who don't get caught by long sentences.

1. Distance amplifies attraction The longer the intervening material, the more likely the verb will be hijacked. The viability of the proposals that the regional teams submitted after the March interim review is still under discussion. Head = viability → is. By the end of that sentence your short-term memory has almost certainly parked proposals or teams as the nearest candidates. Re-anchor deliberately: find the head, then jump straight to the verb and check them alone.

2. Stacking add-ons does not create a compound The lead auditor, along with two juniors and a notetaker, is booked for Thursday. Still singular. Piling up along with / as well as / including phrases never multiplies the grammatical subject. Only a genuine and at subject level does that (again: 5.1).

3. Fronted versions of the same construction Along with the finance team, Legal is reviewing the clause. Head = Legal (treated as a singular department name here) → is. Fronting the phrase changes rhythm and emphasis, not agreement.

4. Register and audience Spoken English and informal writing freely use attraction after these phrases. Most style guides aimed at professional or academic output still expect head agreement. If you're writing under a house style (government, journal, brand) and it specifies, follow it. Where nothing is specified, default to head-noun agreement in anything your reader might treat as careful. Save the looser patterns for messages that won't be archived in a hiring file.

5. Don't conflate this with collective-noun choice The team of consultants is/are available can go either way in British usage depending on a unit-versus-individuals reading — that's a collective-noun decision (Pillar 1), not an intervening-phrase decision. Here, of consultants is still intervening material around the head team. Keep the two switches separate so you don't "solve" one problem with the other rule.

6. Attraction cuts both ways — over-correction is real Writers who have been stung by box of chocolates are sometimes start forcing singulars onto genuinely plural heads: The consequences of the merger is still unclear ← no. Head = consequences → are. Once you're hunting repulsion as well as attraction, you've really got the tool working for you.

Final personal note, since you're owed honesty: I still slow down for every multi-clause as-well-as sentence I edit. The automatic system is unreliable after a certain length. Slowing down is the advanced skill here — not a beginner's crutch.

Pro-Tip: Build a one-pass edit specifically for intervening phrases. Search or skim for of, with, as well as, along with, together with, in addition to. For each hit, underline the head once in the draft and audit only the verb against that underline. Works especially well on long reports and application statements.

Quick recap: - Long digressions breed attraction — re-check head → verb in isolation. - Multiple parenthetical add-ons still leave the original head in charge. - Fronted Along with X, Y is… follows the same rule as medial placement. - Formal / professional register: head agreement. Casual talk: freer. - Collectives (Pillar 1) are a different lever; don't blend them into this one. - Watch over-correction into false singulars when the head is genuinely plural.

UK / US Note

The agreement principles here — head-noun matching through intervening material, and with / as well as / together with etc. not counting as and-compounds — are shared between UK and US English. Cosmetic spelling may differ (favour [US: favor], organised [US: organized], centre [US: center]), but not the grammar. Where UK and US practice diverge on collective-noun number (the team is/are), that is owned by Pillar 1's subject–verb agreement pairing; link there rather than re-open it in this article.

Key Takeaways

• Agreement tracks the subject's head, not the nearest convenient noun.
• Intervening prepositional phrases (of…, for…, on…) never steal subject status.
• With, together with, along with, as well as, in addition to, including, accompanied by introduce extra information — not a second subject. Contrast with true and compounds (5.1).
• Attraction errors are normal under speed or length; the reliable fix is a strip-and-check habit.
• Relative-clause patterns of the one of the people who… family are flagged here and fully taught in Article 5.8.
• Formal writing rewards head-noun discipline; chat does not always require it.

Check Your Understanding

1. Choose: The package of contracts (is / are) ready for signature.
2. Why would a formal editor change The project lead, as well as the vendors, are joining the call?
3. Correct this: Our office, together with two satellite sites, were closed on Friday.
4. Along with the updated appendix, the main report need a final scan. What's wrong, and how do you fix it?
5. In She is one of the managers who handle the overseas accounts, why is a plural verb form expected inside the relative clause in standard formal usage?

Internal Links

• Pillar 5 Hub — map of the hard agreement cases this pillar consolidates
• Pillar 1 — Subject–Verb Agreement (foundation rules; collective-noun UK/US split; and baseline)
• Pillar 3 — structural refresher on prepositional phrases and relative clauses, when needed
• Article 5.1 — true compound subjects with and (the deliberate contrast for the with / as well as family)
• Article 5.8 — full relative-clause and "one of the people who…" pronoun–antecedent treatment