The incumbent mayor has overturned his predecessor’s bill that allows

would have + past participle = To talk about something you wanted to do but didn't.

Hence , (B) is correct.

Hi,

I’m sorry but I don’t understand this sentence. I thought first overturn someone’s bill is an expression I am not familiar with.

Incumbent mayor - We know that the mayor is in debt
The current mayor has overturned the previous mayor’s bill, which the current mayor probably took over
And the current mayor probably needed to pay this bill?
Therefore there the public sector can say goodbye to an increased spending?

How a bill would have allowed the increased spending? Bills do the opposite.

Hi experts,

It seems that few people continue discussing this question, but I still want to ask for help.

First off, for (B), The incumbent mayor has overturned his predecessor’s bill that would have allowed for increased spending in the public sector.
For one thing, "allow for" means "include sb/sth in one's calculations", and from my point of view, this spending has not increased, that's why we need to "allow for" it, so shouldn't we use "allow for the increasing spending"?
For another, under the subjunctive clause, this bill actually has not allowed for the spending, and nothing has happened, not the bill's allowing for whatever or the spending's increase itself, so how can we use "increased spending" rather than "increasing spend"?
That's why I prefer "allow for the increase in spending", which indicates that the spending will increase in the future.
So experts please help explain the difference between "increased spending" and "increasing spending".

Secondly, I think (A) works because "his predecessor’s bill that allows for an increase in spending in the public sector" is introducing a pure fact that this bill allows for a specific situation (or you can deem it as a fact that will never change), and the incumbent mayor just has overturned this bill. Can't we just construe the sentence in this simple way? What's wrong with the aforementioned understanding?

Please experts help shed some light for us, many many thanks to you all!

@renscee - in this context bill refers to a law that has not been created yet, rather than a monetary bill. It is a proposal for a law.

very confusing for me too,I read sentence 8-9 times but still couldn't make out how the bill is in proposed state .and why "would have" is required ? . I felt like many bill already passed and action already happened so use of 'allowed' is appropriate.

So would C be right if "to" was replaced by "in"? Because there's know way to know whether the bill was already passed or not, I was assuming it was already in effect (because it was the bill of a predecessor) and jumped the gun on C.

r19 I am inclined to agree with you.

In the law, a bill that has become law is referred to as a law.
Normally we would say that the mayor overturned the previous mayor's law.
Or we would say that the new mayor vetoed the previous mayor's bill.

A bill amenable to being "overturned" could still be a bill in this very esoteric scenario:

1. The previous mayor made a request to the legislature. Call it pre-Bill XYZ.

2. Mayors submit yearly budgets. This pre-Bill XYZ was NOT in her yearly budget request.
We are supposed to infer that fact from "an increase."

3. A legislator drafted Bill XYZ. The legislature passed Bill XYZ.

EITHER

-- the previous mayor left office before she had a chance to sign the bill.
The bill was sitting on the new mayor's desk, waiting to be signed (remember, the legislature passed Bill XYZ).
The new mayor "overturns" the bill by vetoing the bill.
In this context in the law, we would say that the mayor vetoed the bill.
This use of overturn is too difficult and highly atypical.

OR
-- the previous mayor did sign Bill XYZ that had been passed by the legislature.
The bill was written into the city's laws.
There was a waiting period between
the time that the bill was recorded as a law
and the time that the bill actually took effect AS a law.

The new mayor took office during the waiting period.
The new mayor proposed his own bill that reversed the provisions in Bill XYZ.
A legislator drafted the new mayor's bill. Call that one Bill ABC. The legislature passed Bill ABC.
The new mayor signed Bill ABC, which was then recorded.
Another waiting period ensued between the time that Bill ABC was written into the laws and when Bill ABC actually took effect AS law.

In those two rare and rarefied scenarios, a bill could be:
1) a bill (not a law);
2) a bill whose provisions were set to take effect (it has provisions that were overturned, which means that those provisions both existed and were approved).
Otherwise, what, exactly, is the new mayor overturning? A bill whose provisions changed nothing? No.

I did not buy that the phrase "an increase" made much difference,
because the mayor submits a budget once a year
and her yearly budget could have included "an increase" in public spending.

I did not base my answer choice on the distinction between AN increase in spending
and increased spending.

I eliminated (C) because spending TO the public sector bugged me.

I would take this question and learn what you can from it: Use spending IN for the public sector (and private sector).

Past that part, I would not worry about it any longer.

I have never seen an official GMAT question that is this difficult.
If you draw a question such as this one:
1) you are killing it (doing very well) in Verbal and
2) you are almost finished.

Magoosh typically has truly excellent questions.
As I see it, this one is too hard and creates too much confusion.

In a word: do not worry.

Hope that helps.

georgethomps , I think that you are correct: we don't know whether the bill passed. (On the other hand, oddly, maybe the sentence tilts toward "passed." Mayor #2 could not "overturn" bill that had not been passed bill.)

According to the official explanation, IF the previous mayor's bill had not been a one-time measure; and IF, as you note, option (C) used IN rather than TO; then (C) would be correct.

The bill has passed but has not taken effect. It never took effect. (I describe the two rare scenarios in which this sequence is possible in my post whose link is below.)

Look especially at the portion of the official explanation, here, under FAQ.

In this post, here, I concluded that this question is too difficult. At the least, I do not think it is clear.

Hope that helps.

generis thanks for explaining in details

Like many pointed out, the answer doesn't make sense.
Saying the bill "would have allowed" would make sense for a bill that was recently proposed and shot down, but not for a Bill that was already in place and removed.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.