“Government” does not exist as an independent entity defining policy.

A and E are the most relevant to the argument.I choose E because of the argument put fwd in the preceding sentence "who establish policies that will result in their own reelection".Thus if a policy is hostile to a certain group then it means that the majority does not wish for the policy , as if it were the case that the majority wishes for the a favorable policy then it would have been implemented.
I hope i did not complicate things.

A) environmentalists would be extremely difficult to satisfy with any policy, however environmentally sound
doesnt say why a certain policy is more adhered to
(B) environmental concerns are being accommodated as well as public funds permit
doesnot reason out why a particular policy is being oursued
(C) the public is overly anxious about environmental deterioration
contradcits the reasoning
(D) the majority of voters vote for certain politicians because of those politicians’ idiosyncratic positions on policy issues
CORRECT..thought the positions are idiosyncratic and crazy,these politicinas donot chnage the poisitions and hence
the policies because of their assumtion .
(E) the majority of voters do not strongly wish for a different policy
this sounds close but somehow "DONOT WISH STRONGLY" doesnot really map well to the assumtions of the politicns about what would get them back to power.
IMO D

I think e as it would not jeopardize reelection.

c is my second choice

IMO E. My 2 cents:

1. Whenever I face such CRs in which an example is quoted to explain a phenomenon then usually all the choices mentioning that example are INCORRECT.

2. As per the argument. These politicians are interested in their re-election. How?
If the electorate is unhappy with the the stated policy then they will oppose to it and in that case these politicians will loose chances to get re-elected. So, it must be the lazy voters.

Government consists of member of parliament who are sensitive to public issues and would in all likelihood make policies that cater to public needs in order to ensure re-election or no anti-incumbency.
The passage then goes on to say that if a policy is hostile to environmental concerns then its not because that the government is indifferent towards environmental groups/activists but rather the majority of the public feels the same way as the government does and in order to ensure re-election the government of the day must keep the public happy.
Hence the answer is E.

GMATNinja chiranjeev

Could you please help me to eliminate D

VeritasKarishma

Bunuel

Could you please help me to eliminate D

From the argument, we can infer that elected people would make policies which result in their re-election & for that they have to entice the voters & make policies which align with their voters' interests. So, we can say that this hostile is in fact made because voters wanted such a policy.

(A) environmentalists would be extremely difficult to satisfy with any policy, however environmentally sound
We can't infer anything about the environmentalists

(B) environmental concerns are being accommodated as well as public funds permit
Irrelevant

(C) the public is overly anxious about environmental deterioration
If at all this might go against the reasoning that policy makers makes policies to get re-elected. This, in fact says that hostile policy is thus, made for government's interests.

(D) the majority of voters vote for certain politicians because of those politicians’ idiosyncratic positions on policy issues
We do not know what are idiosyncratic positions, that is, it can be in favour of hostile policy or against it. Also, we can infer something which must be true from the argument. This option states about voters' voting behaviour about which we can't comment on the basis of the given argument. There can be several other reasons for voters to vote.

(E) the majority of voters do not strongly wish for a different policy
On point.

Hi Experts , I have a few question regarding this one

1)I had the impression that option E was wrong because E uses the words ' Not strongly', Implying that the majority had a wish ( not very strong) for the policy to be changed. This causes some confusion.

2) I am not able to understand why option D is wrong here because option D suggests that voters vote for a politician if he has the same stand on a policy as do the people. This along the lines of what the blank expects

3) I also have a question about the interpretation of option D.
Does it mean " The majority of voters 'who' vote for...' or The majority of voters in general.

Thanks

Which of the following best completes the passage below?

“Government” does not exist as an independent entity defining policy. Instead there exists a group of democratically elected pragmatists sensitive to the electorate, who establish policies that will result in their own reelection. Therefore, if public policy is hostile to, say, environmental concerns, it is not because of governmental perversity but because elected officials believe that ______.


in Summary,
elected pragmatists don't want to set policies that doesn't go against public. Why ? Else it would result in reelection.
environmental concerns and public policy are not in line with each other. Then what government official should do?
They should do what public wants or not against them.--This is what E option says.
(E) the majority of voters do not strongly wish for a different policy



(D) the majority of voters vote for certain politicians because of those politicians’ idiosyncratic positions on policy issues
D says: Voters vote because of politicians policies. but such point is not mentioned in argument.
Argument happens If X happen Y will happen
X-> set policy
Y-relection ( favouring users--not set something against public)
D says something backhand not discussed . Why users elect these politicians?
What if after elected , they change their mind /policy then this would weakn the argument.
Thats why D is not correct.
D is talking somethign not required for strengthening the argument.

I hope it is clear.

Which of the following best completes the passage below?

“Government” does not exist as an independent entity defining policy. Instead there exists a group of democratically elected pragmatists sensitive to the electorate, who establish policies that will result in their own reelection. Therefore, if public policy is hostile to, say, environmental concerns, it is not because of governmental perversity but because elected officials believe that ______.

To summarize:

- We have a group of elected people in the government
- These people want to establish policies that are popular in order to help their own reelection chances

So given the above information, if we have a public policy that is opposed to environmental concerns, what can we conclude?

The public policy that is opposed to environmental concerns MUST be a policy that most voters support. E gets at this point and is the correct answer.

Understanding the argument - Politicians (sensitive to the electorate) establish policies that will result in their reelection. So, if the public policy is hostile to environmental concerns, it's because its a reflection of what voters want. The politicians don't want to go against what voters want and jeopardize their re-election. That is what E does.

(A) environmentalists would be extremely difficult to satisfy with any policy, however environmentally sound - Out of scope

(B) environmental concerns are being accommodated as well as public funds permit - out of scope

(C) the public is overly anxious about environmental deterioration- the opposite of what we are looking for.

(D) the majority of voters vote for certain politicians because of those politicians’ idiosyncratic positions on policy issues. The argument doesn't talk about people voting for politicians because of their XYZ positions on issues. It says politicians make policies that are a reflection of what voters want. At best this is out of scope.

(E) the majority of voters do not strongly wish for a different policy - perfect.