Critical Reasoning

Multi-party initiatives are becoming increasingly popular among the members of the parliament of Country W. Although legislation proposed under the auspices of more than one party may not adhere as strictly to the agenda of each of the parties involved as legislation proposed by only one party, the political backing of the voting blocs represented by the cooperating parties make such proposals more likely to pass than proposals that come from a single faction alone. The benefit of multi-party initiatives is that legislation important to the general welfare of Country W that might otherwise have foundered in inter-party disagreements can effectively be enacted.

Which of the following can be inferred from the passage above?

a. Multi-party initiatives deal with proposals too large and complex for a single party to have passed into law.
b. Multi-party initiatives produce a confluence of ideas that results in legislation that is generally better overall for the welfare of Country W.
c. Multi-party initiatives have in the past been less common in the government of Country W than now.
d. Jointly-supported proposals represent only the interests of the parties that back their passage into law.
e. Jointly-supported proposals are not any more likely to be passed into law than proposals presented by individual parties.


Kaplan's answer: C

My answer: B


I am not necessarily arguing for my answer so much as I am against their's. I think Kaplan is drawing a faulty comparison between "less common" (question choice) and "increasingly popular" (first sentence in stem). Those are not necessarily the same thing, right? Can someone chime in?

Do you mean OA is C? D says nothing about common vs popular.

Yes' I meant C ... sorry about that. It's been edited in the original response.

While I agree you could take issue with common versus popular (this one is really tricky), I think I would end up choosing C by process of elimination.

a. Multi-party initiatives deal with proposals too large and complex for a single party to have passed into law.

This is not in the statement.

b. Multi-party initiatives produce a confluence of ideas that results in legislation that is generally better overall for the welfare of Country W.

This one is kind of tricky, but I think we can eliminate it based on the assertion that the confluence of ideas results in the legislation. What the statement actually says is that the joint party initiatives allow legislation that would have otherwise been caught in the partisan issues to pass, not necessarily that the ideas are better. The statement doesn't indicate that it's the good ideas that improve the legislation/welfare, but it's the multi-party initiative.

c. Multi-party initiatives have in the past been less common in the government of Country W than now.

While I agree here you could make the argument that less common does not necessarily equal decreased popularity, I think the argument against B is stronger.

d. Jointly-supported proposals represent only the interests of the parties that back their passage into law.

Not mentioned in the statement.

e. Jointly-supported proposals are not any more likely to be passed into law than proposals presented by individual parties.

Not mentioned in the statement.

So yeah, B by POE, but I don't like this question.

IMO C. Use POE

Multi-party initiatives are becoming increasingly popular among the members of the parliament of Country W. Although legislation proposed under the auspices of more than one party may not adhere as strictly to the agenda of each of the parties involved as legislation proposed by only one party, the political backing of the voting blocs represented by the cooperating parties make such proposals more likely to pass than proposals that come from a single faction alone. The benefit of multi-party initiatives is that legislation important to the general welfare of Country W that might otherwise have foundered in inter-party disagreements can effectively be enacted.

Which of the following can be inferred from the passage above?

a. Multi-party initiatives deal with proposals too large and complex for a single party to have passed into law --> no info about the complexcity of the proporsal
b. Multi-party initiatives produce a confluence of ideas that results in legislation that is generally better overall for the welfare of Country W -->welfare is mentioned, but about the likelihood that it will be passed under multi-party than under inter-party, not about the good or the bad aspect of the welfare
c. Multi-party initiatives have in the past been less common in the government of Country W than now --> yes. Some keywords in the passage implies this: increasingly popular
d. Jointly-supported proposals represent only the interests of the parties that back their passage into law -->no info
e. Jointly-supported proposals are not any more likely to be passed into law than proposals presented by individual parties -->no info

Its definitely C since others seem all the same to me.
It cant be B since B talks about "confluence of ideas" whereas ideas were not mentioned anywhere in the main text. The main text is about legislation and not ideas. I eliminated B from the beginning.

I think D is the most appropriate answer

A) Multi-party initiatives deal with proposals too large and complex for a single party to have passed into law. [Not mentioned in the passage.]
B) Multi-party initiatives produce a confluence of ideas that results in legislation that is generally better overall for the welfare of Country W. [Tempting. However, the exchange of ideas isn't mentioned in the passage.]
C) Multi-party initiatives have in the past been less common in the government of Country W than now. ["Multi-party initiatives are becoming increasingly popular" means they were not as popular before.]
D) Jointly-supported proposals represent only the interests of the parties that back their passage into law.
( Proposal may be backed by various partied but their interests are always a compromise)
E) Jointly-supported proposals are not any more likely to be passed into law than proposals presented by individual parties. [Contradicts what is mentioned in the passage.]