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
正确答案;B Argument Construction
Situation According to Sascha, restricting parliament's ability to direct public money to the projects favored by powerful politicians would be undemocratic. Sascha argues that such a restriction on directed spending would be inconsistent with constitutional requirements.
Reasoning What piece of information would most logically complete Sascha's argument? What piece of information would most strongly associate parliament's spending authority with the concept of democracy? A.good guess would be: some information that connects parliament's public representation role with its spending authority.
Correct. This statement makes explicit the connection, implicitly relied on by Sascha's argument, between parliament's spending authority and its role in representing the public.