sat suite question viewer
| 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?
Explanation
Choice D is the best answer. The claim is that divided Congresses are necessary but insufficient—that is, we need divide Congresses, but they are not enough—to decrease government size, as measured by total federal outlays. This choice accurately expresses the supporting data from the “change in total outlays” part of the graph. Within the data set, divided Congresses sometimes decreased total outlays, but undivided ones never did.
Choice A is incorrect. The claim is only about government size, as measured by total federal outlays—defense and nondefense outlays aren’t relevant. Choice B is incorrect. The claim is only about government size as measured by total federal outlays—nondefense outlays aren’t relevant. Choice C is incorrect. The claim is only about government size as measured by total federal outlays—specific information about defense or nondefense outlays isn’t relevant.