Howdy,

My name is Kevin and I think I can help. The best thing to do first is break down the argument. Since the question stem comes first, we know right from the beginning that we are going to be choosing a conclusion for this argument. So we need to outline the premises to know what kind of conclusion can be supported.

psm12se wrote:Which of the following best completes the passage below?

"Government" does not exist as an independent entity defining policy. Instead there exists a group of democratically elected pragmatists sensitive to the electorate, who establish policies that will result in their own reelection. Therefore, if public policy is hostile to, say, environmental concerns, it is not because of governmental perversity but because elected officials believe that ------.

Premise: Government is not an independent thing.
Premise: Government is made up of elected people who are pragmatic.
Premise: These people listen to the people who elect them.
Premise: People in government set laws and policy that will lead to re-election.

Reading through the argument we can see that the conclusion is already started for us, beginning with "therefore." So we just need to complete the thought.

Conclusion: if policy is anti some topic, like the environment, it is not because the government hates it, but because the elected people believe that ...

At this point we want to predict a way to complete this thought. This will help us eliminate wrong answers and ignore distracting, trap answers.

Looking back at the premise I can see that the elected officials care about what the electorate think, so I would predict that the "elected people believe that the people in the country don't carry about the issue."

Now lets turn to our answer choices and see if we find something that matches this prediction.

(A) is too narrow in scope. It only talks about environmentalists. Also the conclusion only mentions the environment in passing as an example of a larger point so I can eliminate this answer.

(B) this seems off topic and unrelated to the point that is being made. Again too focused on this concept of the environment.

(C) this is the opposite of what is being said in the concluding sentence. And again, too focused on the example of environmental issues.

(D) this is a little better since it talks about the voters, but still is not right. It contradicts what we are told in the premises. Voters vote for politicians not because of their peculiar individual traits. We are told that voters vote for people who adhere to the voters beliefs.

(E) Now this looks like what I predicted and agrees with the premises in the passage. Perfect.

Does this help? I hope so! Let me know if I can make something more clear.

Hi psm12se,

This prompt is an example of a fill-in-the-blank inference question. We'll need to understand the logic the prompt discusses and then find an answer that matches the logic and completes the last sentence.

The Facts:
-"Government" is NOT independent when defining POLICY
-"Government" is a group of democratically ELECTED people who are sensitive to the electorate (the people who elected them)
-"Government" establishes policies that will get them re-elected.
-If POLICY is hostile to environmental concerns, it is NOT because of Government perversity, but BECAUSE.....

The word "because" in the last sentence requires us to find an answer that gives a reason WHY a Government policy may be hostile to an industry (the example is "environmental concerns", but that's not really relevant). Looking at the facts, WHY does a Government policy exist? We're told that Government is ELECTED and that Government establishes policies that will get them RE-ELECTED. So the Government is making policy based on what the voters will support (and thus re-elect the Government). Answer E matches perfectly.

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich