If there is no scope for cutting down the expenses, trimming the expenses would not be possible. Hence, the proposal will not achieve its intended result.
-D-
_________________

Hi MSarmah. Although i am no expert, here is my reason to eliminate C and choose D.

For decades the region's budget has slowly receded into a fiscal slump. The effects of the slump have been felt at every level of government because the government can no longer offer other jurisdictions the subsidies that it had been able to provide in the past. Therefore, to ease the fiscal burden the government must both look to trim expenditures, and stimulate new revenues.

The answer to which of the following questions would be most important in determining whether implementing the proposal would be likely to achieve the desired result?

We need to prove that cutting expenditures and stimulating new revenues will ease fiscal burden.

C) Will the proposed measures stimulate the region's economy?
lf we say "yes" the proposed measures stimulate the region's economy. But what about the moderation or pacifying fiscal budget?
Trim expenditure + Stimulate new revenues ---> Stimulate economy----> ?????
Will the stimulation of economy will ease out fiscal burden.? may be.. May be not.

D) Are there enough non-essential items in the budget available to cut?
D on the other hand is the required assumption. The author ,when recommending that cut the expenditures, is assuming that there are enough non essential items to cut.
_________________

I think the easiest way to eliminate option C) is that if you notice the argument carefully, no mention of economy has been made. That is what helped me rule out the validity of the statement, in addition to the fact that it has no bearing on the conclusion "Therefore, to ease the fiscal burden the government must both look to trim expenditures, and stimulate new revenues."

For option E), I applied the same logic, there is no mention of recession, neither in the argument, nor in the conclusion.

Option B) is clearly irrelevant because the argument makes no mention of the bearing the public's opinion might have on the entire matter. And option A) might confuse you with the fact that subsidies were provided to local jurisdictions, but it is important to notice here that this statement is just an effect of what the government has been doing in the past, and has been discontinued due to the fiscal slump. It is not an influential factor, just a side effect.

As mentioned earlier, D is the clear winner because it ties back to the conclusion of having to "trim expenditure".

Hope this helps.

Hey renjana ,

You need to understand this goal plan question well.

Goal: to ease the fiscal burden the government

Plan: Complete both of the following:
1. look to trim expenditures
2. Stimulate new revenues.

Now, I agree to your point regarding E. But if the economy is heading for a future recession, does that mean they won't be able to generate even a small penny while trimming alot of expenditures? They can, right? If they do, the conditions are met and hence we will be able to ease the burden.

But if I talk about D, if there isn't anything left to cut down anything, I am sure that 1st condition won't be met. Hence, I can't achieve my goal.

Does that make sense?
_________________