Loading...
Editorial: Our President claims that the recent cancellations of scheduled highway projects in 30 legislative districts were designed to trim the budget. That may be, but the choice of which projects to cancel was clearly motivated by party politics. Before those cancellations, most of the scheduled highway projects were in districts controlled by the President's party, and of those that have been canceled, nearly two-thirds were in districts controlled by opposition parties.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument in the editorial?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Our President claims that the recent cancellations of scheduled highway projects in 30 legislative districts were designed to trim the budget. |
|
| That may be, but the choice of which projects to cancel was clearly motivated by party politics. |
|
| Before those cancellations, most of the scheduled highway projects were in districts controlled by the President's party, and of those that have been canceled, nearly two-thirds were in districts controlled by opposition parties. |
|
The author starts by acknowledging the President's budget-cutting explanation, then immediately challenges it by claiming political motivation. The author then supports this challenge with statistical evidence showing a disproportionate pattern in which districts got their projects cancelled.
The choice of which highway projects to cancel was clearly motivated by party politics, not just budget concerns.
The evidence (disproportionate cancellation pattern favoring opposition districts) directly supports the conclusion that political motivation, rather than pure budget considerations, drove the selection process. The statistical imbalance serves as proof of political bias.
Strengthen - We need to find information that makes the editorial's conclusion (that project selection was politically motivated) more believable.
The argument makes precise quantitative claims: 'most' projects were originally in President's party districts, 'nearly two-thirds' of cancelled projects were in opposition districts, and cancellations happened in exactly '30 legislative districts'.
To strengthen the political motivation argument, we need information that either: (1) rules out non-political explanations for why opposition districts got hit harder, (2) shows a clear pattern of political targeting, or (3) demonstrates that the selection process couldn't reasonably be explained by budget considerations alone. We should look for evidence that makes coincidence less likely and political intent more obvious.
This choice powerfully strengthens the political motivation argument. It tells us that the few highway projects that weren't cancelled in opposition districts only survived because they benefit neighboring districts controlled by the President's party. This is devastating to any claim of political neutrality - it shows that even when opposition districts keep their projects, it's only because those projects serve the President's political interests. This creates an airtight case for political motivation by demonstrating that ALL decision-making followed political logic, not budgetary concerns.
This choice actually weakens the political motivation argument. If virtually all cancelled projects were inexpensive renovations rather than expensive new construction, this suggests the selection was based on cost-effectiveness and budget considerations - exactly what the President claimed. This supports the budget-trimming explanation rather than the political motivation theory we're trying to strengthen.
This choice is irrelevant to strengthening the political motivation argument. Knowing that one opposition party controls no districts with originally scheduled projects doesn't help us understand whether the cancellation decisions were politically motivated. It's just background information about the distribution of districts and projects that doesn't address the selection criteria.
This choice focuses on budget proportions but doesn't strengthen the political motivation argument. Whether the cancelled projects represent a small portion of the total budget or a large portion of the highway budget doesn't tell us anything about whether the selection process was politically motivated versus budget-driven. It's more about the financial impact than the decision-making process.
This choice provides logistical information but doesn't strengthen the political motivation argument. Knowing that no more than one project was cancelled per district doesn't help us understand whether those cancellations were politically motivated. This could describe either a politically motivated or budget-motivated selection process equally well.