While Governor Verdant has been in office, the state's budget has increased by an average of 6 percent each year. While the previous governor was in office, the state's budget increased by an average of 11.5 percent each year. Obviously, the austere budgets during Governor Verdant's term have caused the slowdown in the growth in state spending.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?

(A) The rate of inflation in the state averaged 10 percent each year during the previous governor's term in office and 3 percent each year during Verdant's term.
(B) Both federal and state income tax rates have been lowered considerably during Verdant's term in office.
(C) In each year of Verdant's term in office, the state's budget has shown some increase in spending over the previous year.
(D) During Verdant's term in office, the state has either discontinued or begun to charge private citizens for numerous services that the state offered free to citizens during the previous governor's term.
(E) During the previous governor's term in office, the state introduced several so-called "austerity" budgets intended to reduce the growth in state spending.

Causual Effect:-
Budgests of Verfants term---->>>> Slowed down the state growth in spending

We can weaken this by providing an alternate cause or No cause Effect is there or Cause is there but no effect exists etc....

A, B talks about inflation and taxes...Those are wrong....

C is Effect of an Effect.....i.e talking about effect...So its a Junk answer

E is also wrong...

The Answer is D because More revenue and less increase in budget....

What is OA???

hi HSPA, i only recently started to struggle with CR problems, and my reasoning is in danger of sounding silly, so any rejections are highly appreciated
to me the answer is B
passage says that with Governor Vedant state saw slowdown in spending, and this fact was attributed to the harsh verdant`budget
we need to weaken the reasoning, saying that the reason in low spending is not harsh budget but some other case that critics fais to mention.
answer B show this reason
if both federal and state income taxes were lowered, then perhaps state can see slowing in spending, but not perhaps of budget but simply they have no enough money to spend,
at first i also think about A, but A simply destroys conclusion,that is not our aim
it will be great to know oa-!

IMO A

yes Sourav,
OA is A kindly lay down your approach.

Conclusion : The reduced rate of growth in spending is caused by V's austere budgets

A. Definitely a weakener

During P's term Inflation was 10% --> Growth Rate 11.5% --> Effective growth rate --> 11.5-10=1.5%
During V's term Inflation was 3% --> Growth Rate 6% --> Effective growth rate --> 6-3=3%

Now if we can prove that the rate of growth actually did not reduce, we can also conclude V's austere budgets did not reduce the growth rate

B. May not impact the conclusion

Suppose that the tax was reduced by 10%. This could mean that the state income from the tax stream reduced by 10%. Now this may not impact on the overall spending figures as govt could have multiple revenue streams like Sales tax, vat, grants, debt, etc.

C. This again has no impact on the conclusion

we can assume that V was in power for 2 terms, and during these terms the respective rate of growths were 9% and 3%. Though there could be a variance in individual year the average growth rate is still lower than the rate of growth during P's term

D. Like B, this may not impact the conclusion.

Starting or stopping certain charges can impact the revenue from a particular stream, but the overall spending depends multiple revenue streams like Sales tax, vat, grants, debt, etc.

E. Interesting but could be discarded on the relative levels of austerity between both P's and V's budgets

Thanks Sourabh,

I am a diehard powerscore fan.. I am catogarizing this question type under the "statistical problem type -powerscore technique to identify errors"..

sourabh33 wrote:Conclusion : The reduced rate of growth in spending is caused by V's austere budgets

A. Definitely a weakener

During P's term Inflation was 10% --> Growth Rate 11.5% --> Effective growth rate --> 11.5-10=1.5%
During V's term Inflation was 3% --> Growth Rate 6% --> Effective growth rate --> 6-3=3%

Now if we can prove that the rate of growth actually did not reduce, we can also conclude V's austere budgets did not reduce the growth rate

B. May not impact the conclusion

Suppose that the tax was reduced by 10%. This could mean that the state income from the tax stream reduced by 10%. Now this may not impact on the overall spending figures as govt could have multiple revenue streams like Sales tax, vat, grants, debt, etc.

C. This again has no impact on the conclusion

we can assume that V was in power for 2 terms, and during these terms the respective rate of growths were 9% and 3%. Though there could be a variance in individual year the average growth rate is still lower than the rate of growth during P's term

D. Like B, this may not impact the conclusion.

Starting or stopping certain charges can impact the revenue from a particular stream, but the overall spending depends multiple revenue streams like Sales tax, vat, grants, debt, etc.

E. Interesting but could be discarded on the relative levels of austerity between both P's and V's budgets

I was confused between A and E but at last selected E.

can you please explain whats wrong with E ?

Option E Says --> During the previous governor's term in office, the state introduced several so-called "austerity" budgets intended to reduce the growth in state spending.

This could imply that previous governor's budgets were aimed at reducing the growth rate, however, it does not affect the actions of the present governor's aim of reducing the present growth rates. Consider this for example, Yashwant Sinha's budget called for reduced health and military spending and was successful in bringing down the growth rate from 22% to 11.5%;Versus, the Pranab Mukherjee's budgets in addition to cuts in health and military, have called for cuts in education and infrastructure, thereby bringing down the growth to even lower rate of 3%.

Here, the austerity in the previous governor's budget does not directly affect the results of present governor's budget.

You are right.Thanks