GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 13 Dec 2019, 03:23

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Math Expert
User avatar
V
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 59722
Sascha: The attempt to ban parliament's right to pass directed-spendin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Apr 2019, 04:13
2
20
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  35% (medium)

Question Stats:

72% (02:09) correct 28% (02:19) wrong based on 877 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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


CR11751.01
OG2020 NEW QUESTION

_________________
examPAL Representative
User avatar
P
Joined: 07 Dec 2017
Posts: 1155
Re: Sascha: The attempt to ban parliament's right to pass directed-spendin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Apr 2019, 01:36
2
1
Bunuel wrote:
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


CR11751.01
OG2020 NEW QUESTION


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.
_________________
Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 24 Feb 2019
Posts: 6
Re: Sascha: The attempt to ban parliament's right to pass directed-spendin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 May 2019, 16:51
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?
Manager
Manager
avatar
P
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 197
Location: Tajikistan
Re: Sascha: The attempt to ban parliament's right to pass directed-spendin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 May 2019, 21:57
1
DavidTutorexamPAL wrote:
Bunuel wrote:
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


CR11751.01
OG2020 NEW QUESTION


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.



Dear DavidTutorexamPAL,
Could you please help how to eliminated option C?
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 25 Jul 2018
Posts: 62
Location: Uzbekistan
Concentration: Finance, Organizational Behavior
GRE 1: Q168 V167
GPA: 3.85
WE: Project Management (Investment Banking)
Sascha: The attempt to ban parliament's right to pass directed-spendin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 May 2019, 10:16
3
nigina93 wrote:
DavidTutorexamPAL wrote:
Bunuel wrote:
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


CR11751.01
OG2020 NEW QUESTION


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.



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
Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 07 Sep 2019
Posts: 109
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: Marketing, Strategy
WE: Brand Management (Consumer Products)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Sascha: The attempt to ban parliament's right to pass directed-spendin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Nov 2019, 20:09
dereksantamonica wrote:
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?


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.
_________________
--- One day you will thank yourself for not giving up ---
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 15 Apr 2017
Posts: 16
GMAT 1: 570 Q49 V19
CAT Tests
Sascha: The attempt to ban parliament's right to pass directed-spendin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Nov 2019, 23:30
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)
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 17 Aug 2018
Posts: 290
GMAT 1: 610 Q43 V31
GMAT 2: 640 Q45 V32
GMAT 3: 640 Q47 V31
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Sascha: The attempt to ban parliament's right to pass directed-spendin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Nov 2019, 18:28
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.
Manhattan Prep Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 1605
Sascha: The attempt to ban parliament's right to pass directed-spendin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Nov 2019, 18:56
1
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!
_________________

Dmitry Farber | Manhattan Prep GMAT Instructor | San Diego


Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile |
Manhattan GMAT Reviews
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 17 Aug 2018
Posts: 290
GMAT 1: 610 Q43 V31
GMAT 2: 640 Q45 V32
GMAT 3: 640 Q47 V31
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Sascha: The attempt to ban parliament's right to pass directed-spendin  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Nov 2019, 21:24
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.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Sascha: The attempt to ban parliament's right to pass directed-spendin   [#permalink] 30 Nov 2019, 21:24
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne