PeriodCongressional statusChange in total outlaysChange in nondefense outlaysChange in defense outlays1981–1988divided−0.4−1.30.91975–1976divided2.73....
GMAT Information and Ideas : (Ideas) Questions
| Period | Congressional status | Change in total outlays | Change in nondefense outlays | Change in defense outlays |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1981–1988 | divided | −0.4 | −1.3 | 0.9 |
| 1975–1976 | divided | 2.7 | 3.0 | −0.3 |
| 1977–1980 | undivided | 0.3 | 0.6 | −0.3 |
| 1964–1968 | undivided | 1.9 | 1.4 | 0.5 |
| 1969–1974 | divided | −1.8 | 2.1 | −3.9 |
Economist Steve H. Hanke has shown that divided US Congresses—which occur when one party holds the majority in the House of Representatives and another holds the majority in the Senate—tend to accompany reductions in total federal outlays (spending) relative to gross domestic product (GDP), which Hanke interprets to reflect decreases in government size. Hanke calculated the percentage point change in total outlays (encompassing nondefense and defense outlays) for consecutive US Congresses. Hanke has pointed to his calculations as evidence that a divided Congress may be a 'necessary but not sufficient condition' for a decrease in government size to occur.
Which choice best describes data from the table that support the underlined claim?
The periods of undivided Congresses were associated with increases in nondefense outlays, whereas all the periods of divided Congresses except one were associated with reductions in defense outlays.
All the periods of divided Congresses were associated with reductions in total outlays, although two periods were also associated with increases in nondefense outlays.
The periods of undivided Congresses were associated with increases in total outlays, whereas all the periods of divided Congresses were associated with reductions in either nondefense outlays or defense outlays.
All the periods of divided Congresses except one were associated with reductions in total outlays, whereas the periods of undivided Congresses were associated with increases in total outlays.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Part A: Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| "Economist Steve H. Hanke has shown that divided US Congresses—which occur when one party holds the majority in the House of Representatives and another holds the majority in the Senate—tend to accompany reductions in total federal outlays (spending) relative to gross domestic product (GDP)" |
|
| "which Hanke interprets to reflect decreases in government size" |
|
| "Hanke calculated the percentage point change in total outlays (encompassing nondefense and defense outlays) for consecutive US Congresses." |
|
| "Hanke has pointed to his calculations as evidence that a divided Congress may be a 'necessary but not sufficient condition' for a decrease in government size to occur." |
|
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
What's being asked? Which data from the table supports the underlined claim about divided Congress being a "necessary but not sufficient condition"
What type of answer do we need? Evidence from the data that demonstrates this specific relationship
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- For something to be "necessary but not sufficient," we need to see two patterns in the data:
- Necessary part: Every time government size decreased, Congress was divided (no decreases without divided Congress)
- Not sufficient part: Divided Congress doesn't always lead to decreases (some divided periods had increases)
The periods of undivided Congresses were associated with increases in nondefense outlays, whereas all the periods of divided Congresses except one were associated with reductions in defense outlays.
✗ Incorrect
- Focuses on breakdown between nondefense vs defense outlays rather than total outlays
- Doesn't directly address the "necessary but not sufficient" relationship
All the periods of divided Congresses were associated with reductions in total outlays, although two periods were also associated with increases in nondefense outlays.
✗ Incorrect
- Claims "All the periods of divided Congresses were associated with reductions in total outlays"
- This is factually wrong as 1975-1976 divided period shows \(+2.7\) increase
The periods of undivided Congresses were associated with increases in total outlays, whereas all the periods of divided Congresses were associated with reductions in either nondefense outlays or defense outlays.
✗ Incorrect
- Mixes information about different types of outlays without clearly establishing the pattern needed to support the claim
All the periods of divided Congresses except one were associated with reductions in total outlays, whereas the periods of undivided Congresses were associated with increases in total outlays.
✓ Correct
- Accurately states that all divided periods except one had reductions in total outlays, while undivided periods had increases
- This perfectly supports "necessary but not sufficient": decreases only happened with divided Congress (necessary), but not all divided periods had decreases (not sufficient)