What does the author conclude?
Defenders of an appointed second chamber argue that elections would turn it into a rival to the lower house, producing gridlock. They have a point, but the present arrangement buys harmony at an unacceptable price: a legislature in which hundreds of members hold their seats through patronage or inheritance. We do not usually think that a body must be unaccountable to be useful. The risk of gridlock is a matter of design. A chamber elected for a single long term, with no prospect of re-election, would have less incentive to flatter voters or to challenge the government for the sake of it. Such a chamber would retain the benefit of independence while gaining the legitimacy that appointment can never supply.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: C. A second chamber elected for a single long term could be both independent and legitimate
- Step 1: The author's solution is a chamber elected for one long term.
- Step 2: So the answer is the statement that "A second chamber elected for a single long term could be both independent and legitimate".
Answer
A second chamber elected for a single long term could be both independent and legitimate.
Why not the others: The author concedes gridlock is a real risk ('they have a point'), and does not propose the single term for the lower house.
Practise more Parliament.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.