Sascha: The attempt to ban parliament's right to pass directed-spending bills—bills that contain provisions specifically funding the favorite projects...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
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?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| 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 _______. |
|
Argument Flow:
Sascha starts with his main position (banning directed-spending bills is antidemocratic), then supports it by citing constitutional requirements about parliamentary control over spending, and finally explains the underlying principle behind these requirements to set up his concluding point.
Main Conclusion:
Banning parliament's right to pass directed-spending bills is antidemocratic.
Logical Structure:
The argument uses constitutional authority and democratic principles to support the conclusion. The constitutional requirement (premise) supports the idea that parliament should control spending, which in turn supports why banning directed-spending bills would be antidemocratic (conclusion). The incomplete final statement should logically complete the principle about who should exercise ultimate state authority.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Logically Completes - We need to find what statement would most logically finish Sascha's argument about why spending public money is the ultimate exercise of state authority
Precision of Claims
The key claims focus on constitutional authority (parliament's exclusive right to authorize spending), democratic representation (parliament represents citizens most directly), and the nature of spending power (ultimate exercise of state authority)
Strategy
Since this is a 'Logically Completes' question, we need to identify what conclusion would flow naturally from Sascha's reasoning. The argument establishes that: 1) spending public money is the ultimate exercise of state authority, 2) parliament is most representative of citizens, and 3) the constitution requires parliament to authorize spending. We need to complete the 'therefore' statement that explains why this ultimate power should rest with the most representative branch
This choice contradicts Sascha's entire argument. Sascha is defending directed-spending bills as democratic, not arguing they should be considered antidemocratic. If we completed his argument this way, it would completely undermine his opening statement that banning these bills is antidemocratic. This creates a logical contradiction within his own argument.
This choice perfectly completes Sascha's logical flow. He establishes that spending public money is the ultimate exercise of state authority and that parliament is most directly representative of citizens. Therefore, this ultimate power should belong exclusively to the most representative branch. This directly supports his conclusion that banning parliament's spending rights would be antidemocratic, creating a coherent and logical argument.
This choice about constitutional protection being limited to 'most cases—but not all' doesn't logically follow from the premise about ultimate state authority. Sascha isn't discussing exceptions to constitutional protection; he's arguing about which branch should exercise spending power. This completion doesn't connect to his argument about democratic representation or why banning directed-spending bills is wrong.
This choice about modifications to spending bills being authorized expenditures is too narrow and technical. It doesn't address the broader principle Sascha is establishing about ultimate state authority and democratic representation. It fails to complete the logical connection between spending power being ultimate authority and which branch should exercise it.
This choice introduces the irrelevant concept of reelection motivation, which Sascha never discusses. His argument is based on constitutional requirements and democratic representation, not on officials' electoral motivations. This completion doesn't logically follow from his premises about ultimate state authority and representative government.