Q14 - After the United Nations Security

[peg_city]

I've read the stimulus a few times and still don't understand how B is right. Someone please explain.

Thanks

[bbirdwell]

It'd be helpful to know more about your analysis of the original argument. I invite you to describe your thinking in future posts!

The key here is to isolate the two statements that seem to contradict. We want an answer that supports both being true.

So, here are the important facts:

1. parliament condemned prime minister for committing military to UN action.

2. parliament supported the UN plan

So the question is, why did they condemn the prime minister if they supported the UN plan?

(A) is irrelevant.
(B) is correct! It's not the prime minister's job to send the military places -- it's parliament's job! He overstepped his boundaries! This explains why parliament supported the action and condemned the pm.
(C) tries to give parliament a reason to complain. This requires assumptions on our part, however. We've no reason to believe they are not willing to foot the bill.
(D) is out of scope. Perhaps it was widely known that parliament supported the action.
(E) is irrelevant.

Do you see it now?

[vik]

To me, C looks good because parliament could support the UN action. Parliament just wants some other country to send the soldiers instead of their country. What is wrong in this?

[bbirdwell]

I see what you mean, and it's a tough call, I know.

When it comes down to it, though, (C) is simply not as good a choice as (B). It's appealing, but not as good, because the simple fact that the parliament would have to provide the funding does not logically lead to the parliament passing a resolution to condemn the prime minister. The members might groan "Ugh. The PM promised some troops and now we've got to come up with the money." But that's not reason for formal resolutions when compared to (B).

The prime minister stepping beyond his granted power, though, more logically leads to formal condemnation.

[vik]

Brian, you are correct. If parliament is responsible to come up with funding as C suggests, then they would be against the plan (contradicting the stimulus). For C to be correct, we need the additional assumption that parliament is scheming, i.e., they approve of the action but want others to pay for it. This is entirely possible but is an extra assumption.

[uhdang]

I might be making a whole story in this case, but please check my reasoning for E. I initially chose E because I thought this could fill up the discrepancy by thinking, "although parliament members support the UN plan, public disapproves of it and PM approves of it. Since parliaments are attuned to public sentiment, they support the Public's sentiment, and Public doesn't like PM's support on UN plan, which result in parliament's condemning PM. (since they are attuned to the public's sentiment.)

Am I writing a novel here? ;;;;

[malcolma7]

I think the right answer is B