mykrasovski First, it's important to understand our task. Most (but not all) fill-in-the-blank CR arguments are Strengthens, in which we are filling in a missing premise. When we see the word "therefore," we might think that this is the other common type of fill-in--an Inference in which the answer pulls together the previous statements into a logically-supported conclusion--but actually, this one is a Strengthen, too. The beginning of the last sentence ("This requirement is based on the belief that . . . ") indicates that we are looking for support. In this case, we end up with what could be categorized as an Intermediate Conclusion--a statement that is supported by the other premises, but which itself provides support for the main conclusion. Let's read the argument.

Sascha: The attempt to ban parliament's right to pass directed-spending bills—bills that contain provisions specifically funding the favorite projects of some powerful politicians—is antidemocratic.

Conclusion. This sounds like an opinion, so we might guess right away that this is the conclusion. When we see that the rest of the argument supports this point, we know we're right. The author is talking about bills that fund the "pet" projects of politicians. In the US, these are often called earmarks. This kind of spending is often attacked as corrupt or wasteful in real life, but the author is supporting the practice, saying that banning such bills is undemocratic.

Our nation's constitution requires that money be drawn from our treasury only when so stipulated by laws passed by parliament, the branch of government most directly representative of the citizens.

Premise. The author explains that the constitution only allows money to be drawn out when parliament passes a law. Parliament is described as representing the citizens most directly. The author is probably drawing a contrast between parliament, in which members are voted for by citizens in public elections, and other branches of government, in which members may be appointed or otherwise indirectly selected.

This requirement is based on the belief that exercising the power to spend public resources involves the ultimate exercise of state authority and that therefore _________.

Premise (with room for an additional premise). Why does the constitution require that only the directly-elected parliament can authorize spending? The author says that this spending is the biggest or most important way in which the government exerts its power/authority.

Now we want to connect that last premise to the conclusion that banning direct-spending bills is antidemocratic. We already know spending is a very important function, and we know that parliament is most representative of the people. However, those concepts haven't been connected. Answer choice B does exactly that, saying that something this important should be done by the part of government most representative of the people. Note that, as usual for a Strengthen, we don't have conclusive proof of the conclusion. Does this connection we've made mean that these specific bills are democratic, or that banning them is antidemocratic? No, but we have helped the author pull together the support they have provided for authorizing parliament to direct spending.

I hope this helps!
_________________

Consider the logic of Sascha’s argument:

• Sascha concludes (albeit at the beginning of the passage) that “the attempt to ban parliament's right to pass directed-spending bills...is antidemocratic.”
• To support this, Sascha notes that only when “stipulated by laws passed by parliament, the branch of government most directly representative of the citizens,” can money be drawn from the treasury.
• And spending “public resources involves the ultimate exercise of state authority.”

But something seems to be missing: why can only parliament pass directed-spending bills? Can’t we ban parliament’s right to pass directed-spending bills and allow the executive branch, for example, to do so instead?

The correct answer choice should fill the logical gap identified above. In other words, which answer choice bridges the gap between Sascha’s conclusion and his support for that conclusion?


Although it’s possible that Sascha believes such funding should be considered antidemocratic, (A) simply does not connect the dots between spending as the ultimate exercise of state authority, and the conclusion that banning parliament’s right to pass directed-spending bills is antidemocratic. Maybe designating funding for the favorite projects of powerful politicians is antidemocratic, but we still don’t know why we must allow parliament to pass directed-spending bills. Eliminate (A).


If the right to spend public resources “should belong exclusively to the branch of government most directly representative of the citizens” (parliament), then we have reason to believe that only parliament should be able to spend public resources. This is exactly what (B) says, and it answers the questions we asked above. Hold on to (B).


The problem with (C) is that we don’t know when the power to spend public resources is protected. Is parliament’s right to pass directed-spending bills one of those cases protected by the constitution? In the absence of additional information, (C) does little for Sascha’s argument. Eliminate (C).


The rest of Sascha’s argument is about a particular type of spending bill (directed-spending bills), not modifications to spending bills. Therefore, (D) does not fit with the rest of the argument, and we can eliminate it.


Parliamentary officials are likely motivated by concerns for reelection, but it’s possible that officials in other branches of government are as well. So, (E) doesn’t explain why parliament should be the only branch of government allowed to pass directed-spending bills. Eliminate (E).

(B) is the only answer choice remaining, and it is correct.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Though it is very wordy, the passage has relatively simple logic.
Simplifying the language yields:
'banning parliament's right to pass bills is undemocratic...
only parliament can decide when to spend money...
this is based on the belief that spending money is ultimate exercise of authority ... and therefore ____ .'

The missing link needs to explain why only parliament has the right to extract money and how this derives from the 'exercise of authority'. Since we know more or less what to look for, we'll look for it without wasting too much time on irrelevant answer choices. This is a Precise approach.

Skimming through the options, (B) is the only relevant choice -- it says explicitly that the right to use this power should belong to a group representative of the people, namely the parliament.
_________________

I have to say that the wording of a question like this leads me astray. I see the premise as: "The attempt to ban...is antidemocratic." The remainder of the question goes on to discuss how directed-spending bills are seemingly not representative of a constituency's best interests. I have noticed this phenomenon on quite a few questions, OG or otherwise. Does anyone have any helpful strategies for ferreting out the true meaning of these questions?

Dear DavidTutorexamPAL,
Could you please help how to eliminated option C?

Hi Nigina93,

Let me take the shot. Let’s first simplify Sascha’s argument:

Conclusion: It will be antidemocratic if parliament is banned to spend public resources.

Evidence given to support the conclusion: Constitution allows spending public resources only when parliament stipulates so. Constitution does so because such a spending requires top (ultimate) authority and therefore_______

Whatever says Sascha next, it should help him support his conclusion that parliament should not be banned from spending public money.

B. Exclusively parliament (most directly representative of citizens) should be able to spend public money.

Let’s insert B into the evidence and reread it to figure out whether Sascha can support his conclusion with B.

Evidence: Constitution allows spending public resources only when parliament stipulates so. Constitution does so because such a spending requires top (ultimate) authority and therefore exclusively (only) parliament (most directly representative of citizens or top authority) should be able to spend public money.

Among other answer choices B suits best to this role. The usage of ‘exclusively’ in B is justified because earlier Sascha says ‘only’.

C says that Constitution protects the authority to spend public money 'not in all cases’. But indeed Constitution protects it in all cases because spending happens only when parliament wants so. In other words, in all cases only Parliament is entitled by Constitution to spend public money. Thus, C is incorrect.

IMO B

I think the part "The attempt to ban ... is antidemocratic" is a conclusion, not a premise. The remainder of the question contains premises supporting the conclusion. So the part follows "therefore" must consistently link with preceding premises to consolidate the conclusion.
_________________

Question Type: Inference
Structure of the argument:
(1)Banning Parliament's right to pass DBS --> antidemocratic
(2)If passed by parliament-->Money can be drawn
(3)If passed by parliament-->It's democratic
(4)Parliament= the branch of government most directly representative of the citizens
Conclusion:
Exercising the power to spend public resources(equation 2) should be passed by parliament(the branch of government most
directly representative of the citizens)(equation 4)

Can anyone please explain what the argument really means? I read the argument many times, yet I have no clear picture what is going on. And this is despite the fact that I generally like politics and read relevant articles about it almost every day.

Thank you.

Hi DmitryFarber thanks for breaking down the argument. I appreciate it a lot. Seems that it was not the best idea to do lots of critical reasoning practice in the evening... Anyways.

The most confusing part for me was in the beginning of the sentence, i.e. in the conclusion. As you described, people would logically not support "pet" projects / bills of some powerful politicians, since such projects are usually wasteful and their agendas are unclear. However, the author takes the opposite position and says that it is antidemocratic to ban parliament's right to pass such projects. This logic made me very confused and I got stuck in thinking and could not comprehend the rest of the stimulus. So, I told myself "I better skip a similar question during the real test and move on".

Otherwise, the question is pretty straightforward. However, I would say that the wording of the argument makes it a medium-hard question.

Pre-Thinking in own words:
The author considers the banning of parliament's right to pass spending-bills as antidemocratic.
Since spending of money/public resources should be authorized by representatives of the citizens, aka the parliament.
This is based on the idea that only the state should exercise the spending of public ressources.

We are required to search for a conclusion in line with the author's thinking.

(A) designating funding specifically for the favorite projects of some powerful politicians should be considered antidemocratic
Expl: The author only said that The attempt to ban (parliament's right to pass directed-spending bills) is antidemocratic. And he goes on to say that such spending through public resources should be approved by the state. We can not say that the funding (specifically designated for politicians' projects) itself is antidemocratic.
This answer choice is too extreme in my opinion. Look out if there is a better answer choice.
Suboptimal.

(B) the right to exercise such a power should belong exclusively to the branch of government most directly representative of the citizens
Expl: seems better than (A). This answer choice is not as extreme, but more careful in the wording and still conveys the point of the author.
Correct.

(C) exercising the power to spend public resources is in most cases—but not all—protected by the constitution
Expl: We do not know whether exercising this power is not always protected by constitution. The author never mentions anything like that.
Incorrect.

(D) modifications to any spending bills should be considered expenditures authorized by law
Expl: Modifications on the spending-bills shall be expenditures authorised by law? Not so fast. Why should modifications be considered expenditures? And why should modifications be considered authorized by law? In the argument, the author argues against the blunt modification of the spending bills (aka banning of the parliament's right). So considering any modifications on the spending-bills as authorized by law cannot be the point of the author.
Incorrect.

(E) only officials who are motivated by concerns for reelection should retain that power
Expl: the whole argument of the author has nothing to do with reelections. The author never mentions that only specific people should retain that power.
Incorrect.

In Sascha's opinion, restricting parliament's ability to direct public money to the projects favored by powerful politicians would be undemocratic. Sascha argues that such a restriction on directed spending would be inconsistent with the constitutional requirements.
What piece of information would most strongly associate parliament's spending authority with the concept of democracy? An answer choice that connects parliament's public representation role with its spending authority.

Option B, makes that explicit connection, implicitly relied on by sascha's argument, between parliament's spending authority and its role in representing the public.

Option A, She believes that democratic constitutional principles require that parliament remain free to do what is described in the sentence.

Option C, this sentence may be true but fails to associate parliament's spending authority under the constitution with the notion of democracy.

Option D, Bills are merely work-in-progress, texts of proposed laws. Modifications of bills do not in themselves provide legal authority for any public spending

OptionE, Sascha opposes restriction on parliament's spending power, and this would seem to imply that she believes every parliamentary representative should be free to vote on such measures regardless of their levels of concern for re-election.

Source: OG 21

GMATNinja Please throw some light o this one

GMATNinja
Sir, I failed to answer this question correctly, partly because I did not understand this question.

But still, I could eliminate D and E.
Can you help with approaching similar questions when one doesn't understand the question's meaning?
_________________

Sascha: The attempt to ban parliament's right to pass directed-spending bills—bills that contain provisions specifically funding the favorite projects of some powerful politicians—is antidemocratic. Our nation's constitution requires that money be drawn from our treasury only when so stipulated by laws passed by parliament, the branch of government most directly representative of the citizens. This requirement is based on the belief that exercising the power to spend public resources involves the ultimate exercise of state authority and that therefore _________.

Which of the following most logically completes Sascha's argument?

A. designating funding specifically for the favorite projects of some powerful politicians should be considered antidemocratic X
No…this says the exact opposite of Sascha’s argument. She thinks banning parliament’s right to pass bills (that favour powerful politicians) is anti-democratic so it would not make sense for the passage to end by saying it’s anti-democratic if we supported those same politicians

B. the right to exercise such a power should belong exclusively to the branch of government most directly representative of the citizens
Correct

C. exercising the power to spend public resources is in most cases—but not all—protected by the constitution
-Well we don’t get any hint from the paragraph that the exercise of power is NOT protected the constitution

D. modifications to any spending bills should be considered expenditures authorized by law X
-this has no link to the spending of public resources

E. only officials who are motivated by concerns for reelection should retain that power X

-no, this does not follow.
_________________

Hi AndrewN VeritasKarishma DmitryFarber

Conclusion : The attempt to ban parliament's right to pass directed-spending bills—bills that contain provisions specifically funding the favorite projects of some powerful politicians—is antidemocratic.
Premise1 :Our nation's constitution requires that money be drawn from our treasury only when so stipulated by laws passed by parliament, the branch of government most directly representative of the citizens.
Premise2: This requirement is based on the belief that exercising the power to spend public resources involves the ultimate exercise of state authority and
Premise3: that therefore


Have few question in understanding this argument?

1. What the [i]state authority[/i] is doing in this argument?
ultimate exercise of state authority is not a parliament, Is it some other branch of government?
I could not understand what authoir wants to communicate and how is it related with overall argument? Is it just a extra informaiton . I am not able to use this informaiton with other information and can't understand what to comprehend out of it.


2. This requirement is based on belief
Our nation's constitution requires that money be drawn from our treasury o

It seems this refers to money drawn from treasury .\But actually this seems to refer to pass directed-spending bills(phrase given in conclusion).

I got this with meaning approach . Were you not confused even for a moment that here this could refer to phrase after require in premise1. The key to avoid such confusions is to read from meaning perspective and not focus on literal word match. Am I right?


3.) If I comprehend the overall meaning:
Only Branch of government by citizens laws --- > Money drawn by parliament
Spend money by parliament -- > restriction is anti democratic : means should allow
Find a strengthen?
Why parliament should be allowed to spend money?

OptionB:
Because only parliament should have this right .

Does the chain of effect works as below to understand the overall meaning :
By citizens select parliament --- > parliament can withdraw money (premise1) ---> only parliament can allow to spend money (optionB) --- > so ban is antidemocratic ( conclusion)
( I am still confident that I understood completely)

4.) Why should in option B could be correct? it seems like a request , but i think option B should be given as fact.


Maybe I ask some silly questions above. Sorry, I am not 100% confident with this CR.

Hope to hear more clarity on queries.

Thanks ! AndrewN VeritasKarishma DmitryFarber

Hello, mSKR. I will respond below to your queries.


The state in this context is used synonymously with the word government, so the sentence in question is commenting on governmental authority, specifically its, the government's, ability to spend public funds on behalf of that public.


No, matching the keywords is what actually leads to the intended meaning. You simply forgot the part after the one you quoted: only when so stipulated by laws passed by parliament... Without this additional bit, the requirement is incomplete, and the argument will probably not make sense to you.


The argument runs that banning parliament from passing certain types of bills is antidemocratic, since parliament is the branch of government most directly representative of the citizens. The particulars all operate within this larger framework.


I think you have to consider should belong exclusively together, which is definitive in its stance. This is a logical way to express the argument—i.e. this is the way something should be.

I hope that proves helpful to you. Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew

Let me outline how I see the passage after reading it.

- Parliament has a right to pass directed-spending bills (to decide which projects to fund).
- Attempt to ban parliament's right is antidemocratic. (so Parliament should be able to pass directed-spending bills)
- Constitution requires that money decisions be made by Parliament (rep of citizens)
- This requirement is based on the belief spending money is ultimate exercise of authority and hence ...

Now think. The author says that Parliament should have the right to decide how to spend money. The parliament represents citizens. The constitution requires that money decisions be made by Parliament because spending money is ultimate exercise of authority so it should be done by representatives of citizens. Now the argument comes together and makes complete sense.

Now it makes sense that the author believes that the Parliament should have the discretion to decide how to spend money - because it represents citizens.

Hence (B) is correct.
_________________

Sascha: The attempt to ban parliament's right to pass directed-spending bills—bills that contain provisions specifically funding the favorite projects of some powerful politicians—is antidemocratic. Our nation's constitution requires that money be drawn from our treasury only when so stipulated by laws passed by parliament, the branch of government most directly representative of the citizens. This requirement is based on the belief that exercising the power to spend public resources involves the ultimate exercise of state authority and that therefore _________.

Which of the following most logically completes Sascha's argument?

P : direct spending to projects of some powerful politicians should be granted
P : because the spending related law is based on ~

A. designating funding specifically for the favorite projects of some powerful politicians should be considered antidemocratic
-> This is not part of explanation for the laws in using money but is the conclusion that the argument tries tries to dispute.

B. the right to exercise such a power should belong exclusively to the branch of government most directly representative of the citizens
-> Correct. The former part of the sentence has mentioned about the meaning of exercising the power to spend, which is exercising the authority on behalf of citizens. Thus the later part must give a conclusion for such meaning, concluding that since constitution is the organization that represents citizens and their authority, the constitution has the right to use. To conclude, this option connects parliament's public representation role with its spending authority.

C. exercising the power to spend public resources is in most cases—but not all—protected by the constitution
-> This statement give plenty of space by nothing "not all." Thus someone can be curious of whether the excluded part could mean the favorite project of the most celebrated politicians. Moreover, this option is not about relation between authority and parliament.

D. modifications to any spending bills should be considered expenditures authorized by law
-> The sentence starts as "This requirement is based on ~". Thus we need to find an option talking about the ground of the requirement. Option D is mere restatement of the requirement rather than explanation.

E. only officials who are motivated by concerns for reelection should retain that power
-> Irrelevant. We are talking about famous politicians not about their motivations.