Hello there.
First of all, whatever reason you have mentioned for rejecting option B is also applicable to option C.
Read-"Multi-party initiatives are becoming increasingly popular among the members of the parliament of Country W."
Option C is re-phrased of above sentence, isn't it?
Now read "The benefit of multi-party initiatives is that legislation
important to the general welfare of Country W that might otherwise have foundered in inter-party disagreements can effectively be enacted"
Option B states the overall inference of the argument, not just re-phrasing the sentence.
Please let me know where I am wrong?
naturalimproviser wrote:
Quote:
Multi-party initiatives are becoming increasingly popular among the members of the parliament of Country W. Although legislation proposed under the auspices of more than one party may not adhere as strictly to the agenda of each of the parties involved as legislation proposed by only one party, the political backing of the voting blocs represented by the cooperating parties make such proposals more likely to pass than proposals that come from a single faction alone. The benefit of multi-party initiatives is that legislation important to the general welfare of Country W that might otherwise have foundered in inter-party disagreements can effectively be enacted.
Which of the following can be inferred from the passage above?
A) Multi-party initiatives deal with proposals too large and complex for a single party to have passed into law.
B) Multi-party initiatives produce a confluence of ideas that results in legislation that is generally better overall for the welfare of Country W.
C) Multi-party initiatives have in the past been less common in the government of Country W than now.
D) Jointly-supported proposals represent only the interests of the parties that back their passage into law.
E) Jointly-supported proposals are not any more likely to be passed into law than proposals presented by individual parties.
The question stem asks us to find the statement that can be inferred from the passage, so our goal is to find the answer choice which states something that is not particulary mentioned in the paragraph but can be inferred from the passage. Let's have a look at the answer choices -
A) Multi-party initiatives deal with proposals too large and complex for a single party to have passed into law.
(The complexity or the "size" of any kind of proposal is not mentioned anywhere in the passage - OUT OF SCOPE)B) Multi-party initiatives produce a confluence of ideas that results in legislation that is generally better overall for the welfare of Country W.
(This one is very tempting, but as this fact is actually mentioned in the passage that such a system of multi party initiatives in beneficial for the country, it is just a rephrased sentence. Hence, It is not an inference.)C) Multi-party initiatives have in the past been less common in the government of Country W than now.
( This can be inferred from the first line of the paragraph which says "Multi-party initiatives are becoming increasingly popular among the members of the parliament of Country W." which means we can infer that this wasn't the state earlier in country W. Correct)D) Jointly-supported proposals represent only the interests of the parties that back their passage into law.
(The passage reveals no information regarding the interests of parties in jointly-supported proposals. OUT OF SCOPE) E) Jointly-supported proposals are not any more likely to be passed into law than proposals presented by individual parties.
(Again, the passage reveals no information regarding the likelihood of jointly-supported proposals or proposals presented by individual parties. OUT OF SCOPE)