Sascha: The attempt to ban parliament's right to pass directed-spendin

 
Sascha's Conclusion: Directed-spending bills should be allowed. (paraphrase of 'the attempt to ban ... is antidemocratic')

Why?? (Premises resequenced for the sake of clarity)
- parliament is the branch of govt most directly representative of citizens
- exercising the power to spend public resources is the ultimate exercise of state authority
- therefore, as per the constitution, the only way to withdraw money from the treasury is through laws passed by parliament
- therefore, _________

The THEREFORE indicates that we must fill in something that derives from the earlier premises.
Also, to logically complete Sascha's argument, we must fill in something that adds support for her conclusion.

A. designating funding specifically for the favorite projects of some powerful politicians should be considered antidemocratic
- (A) contradicts the argument! As per the argument, a ban on such funding is antidemocratic. 

B. the right to exercise such a power should belong exclusively to the branch of government most directly representative of the citizens
- (B) seems to work. It says that only parliament can exercise 'such power' (the power to spend public resources)  

C. exercising the power to spend public resources is in most cases—but not all—protected by the constitution
- (C) does not mention parliament. Even if we assume (C) is referring to spending by parliament, why the 'but not all'?

D. modifications to any spending bills should be considered expenditures authorized by law
- Irrelevant to Sascha's argument. Her argument is not about modifications to spending bills.

E. only officials who are motivated by concerns for reelection should retain that power­
- (E) does not derive from the earlier premises (though it seems to support the conclusion)
 ­
Hence, the answer is (B).­