Question 42·Hard·Command of Evidence
Percentage Point Changes in US Federal Outlays Relative to GDP by Congressional Status
| 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 quoted claim?
For SAT questions asking which data best support a claim, first restate the claim in your own words and identify exactly which variable(s) in the chart or table represent it. Then ignore other columns and quickly list the pattern you see (for example, whether values are positive or negative under different conditions). Once you know the pattern, scan the answer choices to find the one that accurately and completely describes it, paying special attention to absolute words like 'all' or 'except one' and rejecting any choice that focuses on the wrong measure or misstates even a single row of the data.
Hints
Clarify the key phrase in the claim
Before looking at the answer choices, restate in your own words what 'necessary but not sufficient condition' means. How would that idea show up as a pattern in the table?
Focus on the right columns
The claim is about changes in government size, which the passage equates with total federal outlays relative to GDP. Which single column in the table reflects that, and should therefore be your main focus?
Compare divided vs. undivided Congresses
Group the rows by congressional status (divided vs. undivided) and note for each group how many periods show increases versus reductions in total outlays. Then ask which answer choice describes that specific pattern.
Watch for extreme words like 'all' and 'except one'
When an answer choice uses words like 'all' or 'all except one,' double-check each row in the table to be sure that claim is completely accurate for the relevant column.
Step-by-step Explanation
Understand the claim you need to support
The quoted claim says that a divided Congress may be a necessary but not sufficient condition for a decrease in government size.
- A necessary condition means: whenever you see a decrease in government size, Congress must be divided.
- Not sufficient means: even when Congress is divided, you do not always get a decrease.
In this passage, government size is measured by total outlays relative to GDP, so you should focus on the "Change in total outlays" column and how it relates to the congressional status in each period.
Identify the pattern in total outlays by congressional status
Look only at the "Congressional status" and "Change in total outlays" columns, and decide whether each period shows an increase (positive number) or decrease (negative number) in total outlays.
-
Divided Congress periods:
- 1981–1988: change in total outlays = -0.4 (decrease)
- 1975–1976: change in total outlays = 2.7 (increase)
- 1969–1974: change in total outlays = -1.8 (decrease)
-
Undivided Congress periods:
- 1977–1980: change in total outlays = 0.3 (increase)
- 1964–1968: change in total outlays = 1.9 (increase)
So:
- Decreases in total outlays happen only under divided Congresses.
- One divided Congress period (1975–1976) has an increase instead of a decrease.
- Undivided Congress periods always have increases in total outlays.
Connect the pattern to 'necessary but not sufficient'
Now match this pattern to the meanings of 'necessary' and 'not sufficient':
- Necessary: Every decrease in total outlays happens when Congress is divided (true in the table: both negative values occur during divided Congresses).
- Not sufficient: A divided Congress does not always cause a decrease, because one divided period (1975–1976) has an increase in total outlays.
You also see that undivided Congress periods are consistently associated with increases in total outlays.
Match the data pattern to the correct answer choice
The best answer must:
- Talk specifically about total outlays (the measure of government size here), and
- Capture that almost all divided Congress periods show reductions in total outlays except one, and that undivided Congress periods show increases.
Choice D states exactly that pattern: 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. This directly matches the table and supports the idea that a divided Congress is necessary but not sufficient for reductions in government size.