The incumbent mayor has overturned his predecessor’s bill that allows

Question

The incumbent mayor has overturned his predecessor’s bill that  allows for an increase in spending in   the public sector.

(A) allows for an increase in spending in

(B) would have allowed for increased spending in

(C) allowed for increased spending to

(D) allows for increased spending within

(E) would allow for an increase in spending to

aragonn · Accepted Answer

MAGOOSH OFFICIAL SOLUTION:

Since we know that the mayor has overturned the bill, it is incorrect to say “allows for”, since there is no longer any bill. The bill “would have allowed for an increase in spending”. Eliminate (A), (C) and (D).

(B) correctly uses the conditional tense. Also “increased spending” is even more concise (this is not a deal breaker either way).

(E) describes an action that might occur in the future. The bill has been overturned and there is no mention of resurrecting it.

Finally, “spending in” is idiomatically correct.

Answer: (B)

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: I'm not convinced about (C) still—can you talk more about that?

A: At a glance, it really seems as if the bill had already definitely allowed at least some increase in public spending. That may be possible in the context of this sentence, but "would have allowed" is a much better answer.

The key phrase is "an increase in public spending." Why? "An" indicates just one single increase. In other words, it's implied that the bill was designed to allow a single, one-time increase in public spending to go through. The bill didn't allow an ongoing increasing of spending. If it did that, the sentence would have used a phrase like "increased public spending," "more public spending," etc. In a case like that, (C) would be correct.

The only way a bill that authorizes a short, one-time action can be overturned is if the action hasn't happened yet. So if the new mayor did overturn the bill, it means he was able to stop the bill after it had been passed, but before the single spending increase had actually gone into effect. So the bill would have allowed a one-time increase to quickly happen. But the new mayor overturned the bill before it could actually go into effect.

ENGRTOMBA2018 · Answer

The incumbent mayor has overturned his predecessor’s bill that   allows  for an  increase in spending  in   the public sector.

2 issues with the sentence:

1. Bill 'would' have allowed certain things if it were approved. Use of present tense for a hypothetical situation is incorrect.
2. "increase in spending in..." is a bit wordy. I would go for "increased spending in.."

A)  allows  for an increase in spending in
 Incorrect as mentioned above.

B) would have allowed for increased spending in
 Correct.

C)  allowed  for increased spending  to 
 Incorrect. Point 1 above and incorrect usage of 'to'. Should be "spending in the private sector".

D)  allows  for increased spending  within 
 Incorrect. Point 1 above and incorrect usage of "within". Should be "in".

E) would allow for  an increase in spending to 
 Incorrect. Point 1 and 2 above.

Abhishek009 · Answer

would have + past participle = To talk about something you wanted to do but didn't.

Hence , (B) is correct.

rencsee · Answer

Hi,

I’m sorry but I don’t understand this sentence. I thought first overturn someone’s bill is an expression I am not familiar with.

Incumbent mayor - We know that the mayor is in debt
The current mayor has overturned the previous mayor’s bill, which the current mayor probably took over
And the current mayor probably needed to pay this bill?
Therefore there the public sector can say goodbye to an increased spending?

How a bill would have allowed the increased spending? Bills do the opposite.

ZiongPan · Answer

Hi experts,

It seems that few people continue discussing this question, but I still want to ask for help.

First off, for (B), The incumbent mayor has overturned his predecessor’s bill that  would have allowed for increased spending in the public sector . 
For one thing, "allow for" means "include sb/sth in one's calculations", and from my point of view, this spending has not increased, that's why we need to "allow for" it, so shouldn't we use "allow for the increasing spending"?
For another, under the subjunctive clause, this bill actually has not allowed for the spending, and nothing has happened, not the bill's allowing for whatever or the spending's increase itself, so how can we use "increased spending" rather than "increasing spend"?
That's why I prefer "allow for the increase in spending", which indicates that the spending will increase in the future.
So experts please help explain the difference between  "increased spending"  and  "increasing spending" .

Secondly, I think (A) works because "his predecessor’s bill that allows for an increase in spending in the public sector" is introducing a pure fact that this bill allows for a specific situation (or you can deem it as a fact that will never change), and the incumbent mayor just has overturned this bill. Can't we just construe the sentence in this simple way? What's wrong with the aforementioned understanding?

Please experts help shed some light for us, many many thanks to you all!

fogarasm · Answer

@renscee - in this context bill refers to a law that has not been created yet, rather than a monetary bill. It is a proposal for a law.

r19 · Answer

very confusing for me too,I read sentence 8-9 times but still couldn't make out how the bill is in proposed state .and why "would have" is required ? . I felt like many bill already passed and action already happened so use of 'allowed' is appropriate.

georgethomps · Answer

So would C be right if "to" was replaced by "in"? Because there's know way to know whether the bill was already passed or not, I was assuming it was already in effect (because it was the bill of a predecessor) and jumped the gun on C.

generis · Answer

r19  I am inclined to agree with you.

In the law, a bill that has become law is referred to as a  law .
Normally we would say that the mayor  overturned  the previous mayor's  law .
Or we would say that the new mayor  vetoed  the previous mayor's  bill .

A bill amenable to being "overturned" could still be a bill in this very esoteric scenario:

1. The previous mayor made a request to the legislature. Call it pre-Bill XYZ.

2. Mayors submit yearly budgets. This pre-Bill XYZ was NOT in her yearly budget request.
We are supposed to infer that fact from "an increase."

3. A legislator drafted Bill XYZ. The legislature passed Bill XYZ.

EITHER

-- the previous mayor left office before she had a chance to sign the bill.
The bill was sitting on the new mayor's desk, waiting to be signed (remember, the legislature passed Bill XYZ).
The new mayor "overturns" the bill by vetoing the bill.
In this context in the law, we would say that the mayor  vetoed  the bill. 
This use of  overturn  is too difficult and highly atypical.

OR
-- the previous mayor  did  sign Bill XYZ that had been passed by the legislature. 
The bill was written into the city's laws. 
There was a waiting period between 
the time that the bill was recorded as a law 
and the time that the bill actually took effect AS a law.

The new mayor took office during the waiting period.
The new mayor proposed his own bill that reversed the provisions in Bill XYZ.
A legislator drafted the new mayor's bill. Call that one Bill ABC. The legislature passed Bill ABC.
The new mayor signed Bill ABC, which was then recorded.
Another waiting period ensued between the time that Bill ABC was written into the laws and when Bill ABC actually took effect AS law.

In those two rare and rarefied scenarios, a bill could be:
1) a bill (not a law); 
2) a bill whose provisions were set to take effect (it has provisions that were overturned, which means that those provisions both existed and were approved).
Otherwise, what, exactly, is the new mayor overturning? A bill whose provisions changed nothing? No.

I did not buy that the phrase "an increase" made much difference,
because the mayor submits a budget once a year
and her yearly budget could have included "an increase" in public spending.

I did not base my answer choice on the distinction between  AN increase in spending 
and  increased spending .

I eliminated (C) because spending TO the public sector bugged me.

I would take this question and learn what you can from it: Use spending IN for the public sector (and private sector).

Past that part, I would not worry about it any longer.

I have never seen an official GMAT question that is this difficult.
If you draw a question such as this one: 
1) you are killing it (doing very well) in Verbal and
2) you are almost finished.

Magoosh typically has truly excellent questions.
As I see it, this one is too hard and creates too much confusion.

In a word: do not worry.

Hope that helps.

generis · Answer

georgethomps  , I think that you are correct: we don't know whether the bill passed. (On the other hand, oddly, maybe the sentence tilts toward "passed." Mayor #2 could not "overturn" bill that had not been passed bill.)

According to the official explanation, IF the previous mayor's bill had not been a  one-time  measure; and IF, as you note, option (C) used IN rather than TO; then (C) would be correct.

The bill has passed but has not taken effect. It never took effect. (I describe the two rare scenarios in which this sequence is possible in my post whose link is below.)

Look especially at the portion of the  official explanation,  here ,  under FAQ.

In this post,  here  ,  I concluded that this question is too difficult. At the least, I do not think it is clear.

Hope that helps.

r19 · Answer

generis  thanks for explaining in details

fireagablast · Answer

Like many pointed out, the answer doesn't make sense.
Saying the bill "would have allowed" would make sense for a bill that was recently proposed and shot down, but not for a Bill that was already in place and removed.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

The incumbent mayor has overturned his predecessor’s bill that allows

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

The incumbent mayor has overturned his predecessor’s bill that allows

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards