Passage provides that the legislature cannot reduce the benefit package but can it can improve the package.
Note- it does not talk about whether or not the legislature actually wants to enact the new pension enhancement program.
Conclusion drawn at the end of passage- only governor's VETO can stop the new pension enhancement program.
Option C (correct)- it states that the author is assuming that legislature is in support of the new pension enhancement program, as we saw in the note above author does not take this support or lack of it into consideration. So the conclusion drawn by author breaks because VETO power of governor is not the only obstacle for the enactment of the new pension program.
Would be happy to solve any queries from the given explanation and can explain why other options are incorrect.
abhi758
The State Constitution bans the legislature from reducing the benefit package of the state and local workers during their employment, but it does allow improvement of the package. Thus, the governor’s veto power remains as the only possible obstacle to the new pension enhancement program for recently hired public school teachers.
The author of the argument is assuming which of the following?
(A) The governor wants to reduce the benefit of the package
(B) The new pension program is not part of the benefit package
(C) The legislature supports the new pension program
(D) The governor will probably veto the new pension program
(E) The State Constitution permits the governor to reduce the benefit package of employees during their employment