Single beneficiaries? What the hell kind of writing is this? A named individual and a political party are not a single entity. Sloppy statements such as this detract from the veracity of the article and the credibility of its author.
Hold your horsies. Whatever the grammatical validity of the construction of the entire phrase (which you don't appear to have properly read), using the subclause "single largest beneficiaries" to refer to two or more persons (each of whom might be an individual, a group of individuals, or an entity) is a common construction that appears in many publications; the author is therefore neither sloppy nor unjustified in using the construction.
For reference:
(1) the google search on the quoted phrase "single largest beneficiaries" - http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=%22single+largest+beneficiaries%22&fp=b8a3d25e1efe4b25
(2) a quotation from the book
The German economy, By E. Owen Smith (Routledge, New York, 1994) at page 414:
"This does not gainsay the gratuitous fillip to domestic growth which the banks, and indeed insurance companies, enjoyed as a result of unification. They were arguably the single largest beneficiaries, ...." (emphasis added). The google books pageview for the quotation cited is
here.
(3) a quotation from a NYTimes article published Dec. 20, 1998:
"The single largest beneficiaries of Mr. Broad's giving last year were Pitzer College in Claremont, Calif., at $1.6 million; Michigan State University, $1 million, and the new Disney Hall concert facility in Los Angeles, also $1 million." (Emphasis added). The article can be found
here.
How's them apples?
I like apples.
However, I don't care for your assumption that I did not "properly" read the entire phrase. I did, and I understand what was meant.
The citation of two instances in which similar constructs are used doesn't change my opinion. I can supply you with plenty of cases sloppy, imprecise, ungrammatical sentences or phrases that appear time-after-time in print. That does not legitimize them. How many times have you read or heard a news report saying "Several people were involved in the accident, but none were seriously injured"? Sounds ok, doesn't it?
The word 'single', when used as a numerical descriptor, has a pretty simple definition, which you can look up. It means "one". There is no such thing as 'one beneficiaries' -- there's one beneficiary or there are multiple beneficiaries. If a group is implied, it should be one "group", not one "groups".
In the interest of not wasting huge amounts of my time, I'll stop here. You can have the last word, and that's fine. If we disagree, that's fine, too. But I've learned that there's no point in spending half the day discussion English in discussion forums. (fora, if you prefer...)
I'm simply venturing an opinion, and I see your point. But that won't change my opinion, so I shall neither read nor respond to anything that you or anyone else may offer in either rebuttal or support. These things often veer off into the ditch of irrelevance through misinterpretation of previous comments and failed attempts at clarification.
Life's too short to spend arguing with strangers on the internet.