Hello,
mSKR. I will respond below to your queries.
mSKR wrote:
Quote:
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
B. the right to exercise such a power should belong exclusively to the branch of government most directly representative of the citizens
C. exercising the power to spend public resources is in most cases—but not all—protected by the constitution
D. modifications to any spending bills should be considered expenditures authorized by law
E. only officials who are motivated by concerns for reelection should retain that power
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.
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.
mSKR wrote:
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?
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.
mSKR wrote:
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)
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.
mSKR wrote:
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 DmitryFarberI 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