GED Reasoning Through Language Arts Practice Test 2

Excerpt from Across America by Motorcycle
by C. K. Shepherd

1   I found a hotel that, from the outside, just suited my fancy. Plain, large and unpretentious, it described itself in an illuminated sign as the “National.” I booked a room at three dollars and sallied forth to see the sights.

2   I was impressed with Washington. It is truly a city of beautiful streets and magnificent buildings. Undoubtedly it is the city de luxe of America. Being the capital, wealth is lavished upon it. No factories or barren wastes disfigure its graceful countenance. Every street or avenue glistens at night with a bewildering multitude of illuminated signs. This method of advertising is typically American. The first impression of a stranger visiting a large American city at night is that he is in a children’s luminous palace. There are illuminations and decorations of every conceivable nature. Sometimes a single sign advertising perhaps some particular brand of chewing-gum or cigarette or motorcar has thousands and tens of thousands of lights wonderfully displayed in different colors and arranged in different series, one series flashing into view as another disappears, then a few seconds later giving place to another still more wonderful, and finally there comes a grand climax in which all the colors and all the series and all the figures blaze forth in an indescribable orgy of light.

3   When I found myself finally back in my hotel, I was to be the victim of still another disillusionment. No country anywhere could rival America for hotels, I had thought. But I had not then experienced the “National” at Washington. The room allotted to me was literally an outrage. It was of the very poorest that one would expect to find in an East End boarding-house in the Old Kent Road. It had one window, which faced on to an unimaginably dreary “area.” The carpet was threadbare and colorless. The furniture, consisting of one bed, one dressing- table, one wardrobe and one chair was obviously suffering from advanced senile decay. There was a washbasin in one corner that boasted of two taps and a piece of wood to stop the hole up with. The door showed signs of having been minus a lock for many a long day. I was too tired, however, to bother about trivialities of detail, so putting my revolver under the blanket near me in case of possible eventualities, I laid me down in peace to sleep.

4 Nothing occurred, however, to disturb my peace of mind or body throughout the night. When I came to square up that morning I paid my respects and three dollars to the management.

5  “See here, Mister Manager,” I said in such a tone that everyone within hearing distance had the benefit of it as well, “I’ve done a bit of travelling here and there, but never in ANY city at ANY time have I struck ANY hotel that for sheer rottenness compares with THIS one!”

6 I have an idea at the back of my mind that that manager-man doesn’t love Englishmen!

Which definition best matches the use of the word “unpretentious” in paragraph 1?

Excerpt from Across America by Motorcycle
by C. K. Shepherd

1   I found a hotel that, from the outside, just suited my fancy. Plain, large and unpretentious, it described itself in an illuminated sign as the “National.” I booked a room at three dollars and sallied forth to see the sights.

2   I was impressed with Washington. It is truly a city of beautiful streets and magnificent buildings. Undoubtedly it is the city de luxe of America. Being the capital, wealth is lavished upon it. No factories or barren wastes disfigure its graceful countenance. Every street or avenue glistens at night with a bewildering multitude of illuminated signs. This method of advertising is typically American. The first impression of a stranger visiting a large American city at night is that he is in a children’s luminous palace. There are illuminations and decorations of every conceivable nature. Sometimes a single sign advertising perhaps some particular brand of chewing-gum or cigarette or motorcar has thousands and tens of thousands of lights wonderfully displayed in different colors and arranged in different series, one series flashing into view as another disappears, then a few seconds later giving place to another still more wonderful, and finally there comes a grand climax in which all the colors and all the series and all the figures blaze forth in an indescribable orgy of light.

3   When I found myself finally back in my hotel, I was to be the victim of still another disillusionment. No country anywhere could rival America for hotels, I had thought. But I had not then experienced the “National” at Washington. The room allotted to me was literally an outrage. It was of the very poorest that one would expect to find in an East End boarding-house in the Old Kent Road. It had one window, which faced on to an unimaginably dreary “area.” The carpet was threadbare and colorless. The furniture, consisting of one bed, one dressing- table, one wardrobe and one chair was obviously suffering from advanced senile decay. There was a washbasin in one corner that boasted of two taps and a piece of wood to stop the hole up with. The door showed signs of having been minus a lock for many a long day. I was too tired, however, to bother about trivialities of detail, so putting my revolver under the blanket near me in case of possible eventualities, I laid me down in peace to sleep.

4 Nothing occurred, however, to disturb my peace of mind or body throughout the night. When I came to square up that morning I paid my respects and three dollars to the management.

5  “See here, Mister Manager,” I said in such a tone that everyone within hearing distance had the benefit of it as well, “I’ve done a bit of travelling here and there, but never in ANY city at ANY time have I struck ANY hotel that for sheer rottenness compares with THIS one!”

6 I have an idea at the back of my mind that that manager-man doesn’t love Englishmen!

How does the nighttime view of the city of Washington affect the narrator?

Excerpt from Across America by Motorcycle
by C. K. Shepherd

1   I found a hotel that, from the outside, just suited my fancy. Plain, large and unpretentious, it described itself in an illuminated sign as the “National.” I booked a room at three dollars and sallied forth to see the sights.

2   I was impressed with Washington. It is truly a city of beautiful streets and magnificent buildings. Undoubtedly it is the city de luxe of America. Being the capital, wealth is lavished upon it. No factories or barren wastes disfigure its graceful countenance. Every street or avenue glistens at night with a bewildering multitude of illuminated signs. This method of advertising is typically American. The first impression of a stranger visiting a large American city at night is that he is in a children’s luminous palace. There are illuminations and decorations of every conceivable nature. Sometimes a single sign advertising perhaps some particular brand of chewing-gum or cigarette or motorcar has thousands and tens of thousands of lights wonderfully displayed in different colors and arranged in different series, one series flashing into view as another disappears, then a few seconds later giving place to another still more wonderful, and finally there comes a grand climax in which all the colors and all the series and all the figures blaze forth in an indescribable orgy of light.

3   When I found myself finally back in my hotel, I was to be the victim of still another disillusionment. No country anywhere could rival America for hotels, I had thought. But I had not then experienced the “National” at Washington. The room allotted to me was literally an outrage. It was of the very poorest that one would expect to find in an East End boarding-house in the Old Kent Road. It had one window, which faced on to an unimaginably dreary “area.” The carpet was threadbare and colorless. The furniture, consisting of one bed, one dressing- table, one wardrobe and one chair was obviously suffering from advanced senile decay. There was a washbasin in one corner that boasted of two taps and a piece of wood to stop the hole up with. The door showed signs of having been minus a lock for many a long day. I was too tired, however, to bother about trivialities of detail, so putting my revolver under the blanket near me in case of possible eventualities, I laid me down in peace to sleep.

4 Nothing occurred, however, to disturb my peace of mind or body throughout the night. When I came to square up that morning I paid my respects and three dollars to the management.

5  “See here, Mister Manager,” I said in such a tone that everyone within hearing distance had the benefit of it as well, “I’ve done a bit of travelling here and there, but never in ANY city at ANY time have I struck ANY hotel that for sheer rottenness compares with THIS one!”

6 I have an idea at the back of my mind that that manager-man doesn’t love Englishmen!

Why does the narrator describe an American city at night as a “children’s luminous palace”?

Excerpt from Across America by Motorcycle
by C. K. Shepherd

1   I found a hotel that, from the outside, just suited my fancy. Plain, large and unpretentious, it described itself in an illuminated sign as the “National.” I booked a room at three dollars and sallied forth to see the sights.

2   I was impressed with Washington. It is truly a city of beautiful streets and magnificent buildings. Undoubtedly it is the city de luxe of America. Being the capital, wealth is lavished upon it. No factories or barren wastes disfigure its graceful countenance. Every street or avenue glistens at night with a bewildering multitude of illuminated signs. This method of advertising is typically American. The first impression of a stranger visiting a large American city at night is that he is in a children’s luminous palace. There are illuminations and decorations of every conceivable nature. Sometimes a single sign advertising perhaps some particular brand of chewing-gum or cigarette or motorcar has thousands and tens of thousands of lights wonderfully displayed in different colors and arranged in different series, one series flashing into view as another disappears, then a few seconds later giving place to another still more wonderful, and finally there comes a grand climax in which all the colors and all the series and all the figures blaze forth in an indescribable orgy of light.

3   When I found myself finally back in my hotel, I was to be the victim of still another disillusionment. No country anywhere could rival America for hotels, I had thought. But I had not then experienced the “National” at Washington. The room allotted to me was literally an outrage. It was of the very poorest that one would expect to find in an East End boarding-house in the Old Kent Road. It had one window, which faced on to an unimaginably dreary “area.” The carpet was threadbare and colorless. The furniture, consisting of one bed, one dressing- table, one wardrobe and one chair was obviously suffering from advanced senile decay. There was a washbasin in one corner that boasted of two taps and a piece of wood to stop the hole up with. The door showed signs of having been minus a lock for many a long day. I was too tired, however, to bother about trivialities of detail, so putting my revolver under the blanket near me in case of possible eventualities, I laid me down in peace to sleep.

4 Nothing occurred, however, to disturb my peace of mind or body throughout the night. When I came to square up that morning I paid my respects and three dollars to the management.

5  “See here, Mister Manager,” I said in such a tone that everyone within hearing distance had the benefit of it as well, “I’ve done a bit of travelling here and there, but never in ANY city at ANY time have I struck ANY hotel that for sheer rottenness compares with THIS one!”

6 I have an idea at the back of my mind that that manager-man doesn’t love Englishmen!

What does the phrase “still another disillusionment” reveal about the narrator’s journey?

Excerpt from Across America by Motorcycle
by C. K. Shepherd

1   I found a hotel that, from the outside, just suited my fancy. Plain, large and unpretentious, it described itself in an illuminated sign as the “National.” I booked a room at three dollars and sallied forth to see the sights.

2   I was impressed with Washington. It is truly a city of beautiful streets and magnificent buildings. Undoubtedly it is the city de luxe of America. Being the capital, wealth is lavished upon it. No factories or barren wastes disfigure its graceful countenance. Every street or avenue glistens at night with a bewildering multitude of illuminated signs. This method of advertising is typically American. The first impression of a stranger visiting a large American city at night is that he is in a children’s luminous palace. There are illuminations and decorations of every conceivable nature. Sometimes a single sign advertising perhaps some particular brand of chewing-gum or cigarette or motorcar has thousands and tens of thousands of lights wonderfully displayed in different colors and arranged in different series, one series flashing into view as another disappears, then a few seconds later giving place to another still more wonderful, and finally there comes a grand climax in which all the colors and all the series and all the figures blaze forth in an indescribable orgy of light.

3   When I found myself finally back in my hotel, I was to be the victim of still another disillusionment. No country anywhere could rival America for hotels, I had thought. But I had not then experienced the “National” at Washington. The room allotted to me was literally an outrage. It was of the very poorest that one would expect to find in an East End boarding-house in the Old Kent Road. It had one window, which faced on to an unimaginably dreary “area.” The carpet was threadbare and colorless. The furniture, consisting of one bed, one dressing- table, one wardrobe and one chair was obviously suffering from advanced senile decay. There was a washbasin in one corner that boasted of two taps and a piece of wood to stop the hole up with. The door showed signs of having been minus a lock for many a long day. I was too tired, however, to bother about trivialities of detail, so putting my revolver under the blanket near me in case of possible eventualities, I laid me down in peace to sleep.

4 Nothing occurred, however, to disturb my peace of mind or body throughout the night. When I came to square up that morning I paid my respects and three dollars to the management.

5  “See here, Mister Manager,” I said in such a tone that everyone within hearing distance had the benefit of it as well, “I’ve done a bit of travelling here and there, but never in ANY city at ANY time have I struck ANY hotel that for sheer rottenness compares with THIS one!”

6 I have an idea at the back of my mind that that manager-man doesn’t love Englishmen!

Why does the author use “senile” in paragraph 3?

Excerpt from Across America by Motorcycle
by C. K. Shepherd

1   I found a hotel that, from the outside, just suited my fancy. Plain, large and unpretentious, it described itself in an illuminated sign as the “National.” I booked a room at three dollars and sallied forth to see the sights.

2   I was impressed with Washington. It is truly a city of beautiful streets and magnificent buildings. Undoubtedly it is the city de luxe of America. Being the capital, wealth is lavished upon it. No factories or barren wastes disfigure its graceful countenance. Every street or avenue glistens at night with a bewildering multitude of illuminated signs. This method of advertising is typically American. The first impression of a stranger visiting a large American city at night is that he is in a children’s luminous palace. There are illuminations and decorations of every conceivable nature. Sometimes a single sign advertising perhaps some particular brand of chewing-gum or cigarette or motorcar has thousands and tens of thousands of lights wonderfully displayed in different colors and arranged in different series, one series flashing into view as another disappears, then a few seconds later giving place to another still more wonderful, and finally there comes a grand climax in which all the colors and all the series and all the figures blaze forth in an indescribable orgy of light.

3   When I found myself finally back in my hotel, I was to be the victim of still another disillusionment. No country anywhere could rival America for hotels, I had thought. But I had not then experienced the “National” at Washington. The room allotted to me was literally an outrage. It was of the very poorest that one would expect to find in an East End boarding-house in the Old Kent Road. It had one window, which faced on to an unimaginably dreary “area.” The carpet was threadbare and colorless. The furniture, consisting of one bed, one dressing- table, one wardrobe and one chair was obviously suffering from advanced senile decay. There was a washbasin in one corner that boasted of two taps and a piece of wood to stop the hole up with. The door showed signs of having been minus a lock for many a long day. I was too tired, however, to bother about trivialities of detail, so putting my revolver under the blanket near me in case of possible eventualities, I laid me down in peace to sleep.

4 Nothing occurred, however, to disturb my peace of mind or body throughout the night. When I came to square up that morning I paid my respects and three dollars to the management.

5  “See here, Mister Manager,” I said in such a tone that everyone within hearing distance had the benefit of it as well, “I’ve done a bit of travelling here and there, but never in ANY city at ANY time have I struck ANY hotel that for sheer rottenness compares with THIS one!”

6 I have an idea at the back of my mind that that manager-man doesn’t love Englishmen!

In this excerpt, the narrator puts a revolver under the blanket before going to sleep. What characteristic does this action reveal about the narrator?

Excerpt from Across America by Motorcycle
by C. K. Shepherd

1   I found a hotel that, from the outside, just suited my fancy. Plain, large and unpretentious, it described itself in an illuminated sign as the “National.” I booked a room at three dollars and sallied forth to see the sights.

2   I was impressed with Washington. It is truly a city of beautiful streets and magnificent buildings. Undoubtedly it is the city de luxe of America. Being the capital, wealth is lavished upon it. No factories or barren wastes disfigure its graceful countenance. Every street or avenue glistens at night with a bewildering multitude of illuminated signs. This method of advertising is typically American. The first impression of a stranger visiting a large American city at night is that he is in a children’s luminous palace. There are illuminations and decorations of every conceivable nature. Sometimes a single sign advertising perhaps some particular brand of chewing-gum or cigarette or motorcar has thousands and tens of thousands of lights wonderfully displayed in different colors and arranged in different series, one series flashing into view as another disappears, then a few seconds later giving place to another still more wonderful, and finally there comes a grand climax in which all the colors and all the series and all the figures blaze forth in an indescribable orgy of light.

3   When I found myself finally back in my hotel, I was to be the victim of still another disillusionment. No country anywhere could rival America for hotels, I had thought. But I had not then experienced the “National” at Washington. The room allotted to me was literally an outrage. It was of the very poorest that one would expect to find in an East End boarding-house in the Old Kent Road. It had one window, which faced on to an unimaginably dreary “area.” The carpet was threadbare and colorless. The furniture, consisting of one bed, one dressing- table, one wardrobe and one chair was obviously suffering from advanced senile decay. There was a washbasin in one corner that boasted of two taps and a piece of wood to stop the hole up with. The door showed signs of having been minus a lock for many a long day. I was too tired, however, to bother about trivialities of detail, so putting my revolver under the blanket near me in case of possible eventualities, I laid me down in peace to sleep.

4 Nothing occurred, however, to disturb my peace of mind or body throughout the night. When I came to square up that morning I paid my respects and three dollars to the management.

5  “See here, Mister Manager,” I said in such a tone that everyone within hearing distance had the benefit of it as well, “I’ve done a bit of travelling here and there, but never in ANY city at ANY time have I struck ANY hotel that for sheer rottenness compares with THIS one!”

6 I have an idea at the back of my mind that that manager-man doesn’t love Englishmen!

Read this sentence:

“I have an idea at the back of my mind that that manager-man doesn’t love Englishmen!”

Why does the author conclude the excerpt with this sentence?

Excerpt from Across America by Motorcycle
by C. K. Shepherd

1   I found a hotel that, from the outside, just suited my fancy. Plain, large and unpretentious, it described itself in an illuminated sign as the “National.” I booked a room at three dollars and sallied forth to see the sights.

2   I was impressed with Washington. It is truly a city of beautiful streets and magnificent buildings. Undoubtedly it is the city de luxe of America. Being the capital, wealth is lavished upon it. No factories or barren wastes disfigure its graceful countenance. Every street or avenue glistens at night with a bewildering multitude of illuminated signs. This method of advertising is typically American. The first impression of a stranger visiting a large American city at night is that he is in a children’s luminous palace. There are illuminations and decorations of every conceivable nature. Sometimes a single sign advertising perhaps some particular brand of chewing-gum or cigarette or motorcar has thousands and tens of thousands of lights wonderfully displayed in different colors and arranged in different series, one series flashing into view as another disappears, then a few seconds later giving place to another still more wonderful, and finally there comes a grand climax in which all the colors and all the series and all the figures blaze forth in an indescribable orgy of light.

3   When I found myself finally back in my hotel, I was to be the victim of still another disillusionment. No country anywhere could rival America for hotels, I had thought. But I had not then experienced the “National” at Washington. The room allotted to me was literally an outrage. It was of the very poorest that one would expect to find in an East End boarding-house in the Old Kent Road. It had one window, which faced on to an unimaginably dreary “area.” The carpet was threadbare and colorless. The furniture, consisting of one bed, one dressing- table, one wardrobe and one chair was obviously suffering from advanced senile decay. There was a washbasin in one corner that boasted of two taps and a piece of wood to stop the hole up with. The door showed signs of having been minus a lock for many a long day. I was too tired, however, to bother about trivialities of detail, so putting my revolver under the blanket near me in case of possible eventualities, I laid me down in peace to sleep.

4 Nothing occurred, however, to disturb my peace of mind or body throughout the night. When I came to square up that morning I paid my respects and three dollars to the management.

5  “See here, Mister Manager,” I said in such a tone that everyone within hearing distance had the benefit of it as well, “I’ve done a bit of travelling here and there, but never in ANY city at ANY time have I struck ANY hotel that for sheer rottenness compares with THIS one!”

6 I have an idea at the back of my mind that that manager-man doesn’t love Englishmen!

What can the reader infer about the narrator?

Questions 9 through 16 refer to the following passage.

Should American Cities Adopt a Commission Form of
Government?
by Leverett S. Lyon

The Affirmative:

1 During the last quarter-century, municipal organization has trended toward concentration of powers. Some cities have recognized the wisdom of such action, but have unwisely attempted to concentrate only the executive power whereas the real solution lies in concentrating all governmental authority in one responsible body.

2 So evident is the need for this solution that there is now a charter revision committee meeting in New York to consider eliminating the separate council entirely, and creating in its place a small commission possessing both legislative and administrative authority.

3 What is true of New York is true of scores of other cities. Within the past two years more than a dozen states have provided for a commission form of government, while within the past year more than a dozen cities have thrown away their old forms and assumed the commission system.

4 The success of a separate legislative body in state and national government is the only excuse for its retention in our cities, yet such a government is unsuited to modern municipalities. Unlike the state, the work of a city is largely administrative and of a business character, and does not require a separate council to legislate. We do not find, as in the state, the necessity of a large and separate body to represent the various localities. The city has a large population living in a restricted territory; in the state it is scattered.

5 The present principle of separation makes possible concentration of power, without a corresponding concentration of responsibility. When one branch of the government dominates, checks and balances between the departments are lost. The system of checks and balances failed in New York, where the mayor is supreme, and where the city has been plundered of sums estimated at 7 percent of the total valuation of real estate. It failed in St. Louis, where the council dominated, and where “Boss Butler” paid that body $250,000 to pass a street railway franchise. Neither did it work in Philadelphia, which has been plundered of an amount equal to 10 percent of her real estate valuation.

6 Therefore, we must concentrate municipal authority; we must co-ordinate departments, eliminate useless boards and committees and fix individual responsibility. This, we propose to do by establishing a commission form of government, where all governmental authority is vested in one small body of men, who individually act as the heads of administrative departments, but who collectively pass the needed legislation. Thus, instead of a council with restricted powers and divided authority, we have a few men assuming positions of genuine responsibility, as regards both the originating and enforcing of laws.

The Negative:

7 We do not defend the evils of present city organization. We believe that far-reaching reforms must be instituted. The issue then is, does the commission form offer a satisfactory solution of our municipal problems?

8 In many forms today, as the gentlemen have depicted, the relations between the legislative and executive departments are such that responsibility cannot be fixed. But every conspicuous example of municipal success is based upon the proper correlation between these departments. Municipal success in Europe is an established fact. There we find the cabinet form, in which governing power is vested in the legislative body, which then delegates administrative functions to the cabinet. Charleston, S. C., Elmira, New York, Los Angeles, Cal., are a few of the typical American cities which have successfully adopted the mayor and council form by utilizing the model charter of the National Municipal League.

9 Therefore, in whatever form, the principle of a proper division of functions must be embodied. The Affirmative must admit that, after fifteen years of misrule under the commission form in Sacramento, the freeholders by unanimous choice again adopted distinct legislative and administrative bodies; and that the commission form has lately operated but a few years in a few small cities.

10 Evils in our cities are due to bad social and economic conditions, and to state interference in purely local affairs. In the United States the city may not act except where authorized by the state. In Europe the city may do anything it is not forbidden to do, and municipal success there is based on this freedom. The European city makes its own local laws, not in conflict with, but in addition to, state law. But in the United States the state legislature failed to distinguish between matters of interest to the state government and those of exclusive interest to the cities.

11 The remedy lies in restoring to the city its proper field of legislation. Already thirty states have passed constitutional amendments granting greater legislative powers to the cities. Five states now allow cities to amend their own charters. But in direct opposition to this movement for municipal home rule, the commission form takes the last step in the destruction of the city’s legislative body and fosters continued state interference. President Eliot says that the functions of the commissioners will be defined by the state.

12 We have shown the real causes of municipal evils, and they are to be remedied without tampering with the fundamental principles proved by time and experience. The Affirmative say: change the fundamental principle. The Negative say: retain the principle of distinct legislative and administrative bodies, but observe a proper correlation between them. We would remedy bad social and economic conditions, and, most important of all, give the city greater freedom in powers of local self-government. Source: Adapted and abridged from Elements of Debating, by Leverett S. Lyon, 1919.

What evidence does the Affirmative use to support their claims?
In the real test - Drag and drop four pieces of evidence into the chart.

Claim 1: The need for concentrating all power into a commission is evident.

Select two pieces of evidence

Claim 2: When one branch of the government dominates, checks and balances between the departments are lost

Select two pieces of evidence

Questions 9 through 16 refer to the following passage.

Should American Cities Adopt a Commission Form of
Government?
by Leverett S. Lyon

The Affirmative:

1 During the last quarter-century, municipal organization has trended toward concentration of powers. Some cities have recognized the wisdom of such action, but have unwisely attempted to concentrate only the executive power whereas the real solution lies in concentrating all governmental authority in one responsible body.

2 So evident is the need for this solution that there is now a charter revision committee meeting in New York to consider eliminating the separate council entirely, and creating in its place a small commission possessing both legislative and administrative authority.

3 What is true of New York is true of scores of other cities. Within the past two years more than a dozen states have provided for a commission form of government, while within the past year more than a dozen cities have thrown away their old forms and assumed the commission system.

4 The success of a separate legislative body in state and national government is the only excuse for its retention in our cities, yet such a government is unsuited to modern municipalities. Unlike the state, the work of a city is largely administrative and of a business character, and does not require a separate council to legislate. We do not find, as in the state, the necessity of a large and separate body to represent the various localities. The city has a large population living in a restricted territory; in the state it is scattered.

5 The present principle of separation makes possible concentration of power, without a corresponding concentration of responsibility. When one branch of the government dominates, checks and balances between the departments are lost. The system of checks and balances failed in New York, where the mayor is supreme, and where the city has been plundered of sums estimated at 7 percent of the total valuation of real estate. It failed in St. Louis, where the council dominated, and where “Boss Butler” paid that body $250,000 to pass a street railway franchise. Neither did it work in Philadelphia, which has been plundered of an amount equal to 10 percent of her real estate valuation.

6 Therefore, we must concentrate municipal authority; we must co-ordinate departments, eliminate useless boards and committees and fix individual responsibility. This, we propose to do by establishing a commission form of government, where all governmental authority is vested in one small body of men, who individually act as the heads of administrative departments, but who collectively pass the needed legislation. Thus, instead of a council with restricted powers and divided authority, we have a few men assuming positions of genuine responsibility, as regards both the originating and enforcing of laws.

The Negative:

7 We do not defend the evils of present city organization. We believe that far-reaching reforms must be instituted. The issue then is, does the commission form offer a satisfactory solution of our municipal problems?

8 In many forms today, as the gentlemen have depicted, the relations between the legislative and executive departments are such that responsibility cannot be fixed. But every conspicuous example of municipal success is based upon the proper correlation between these departments. Municipal success in Europe is an established fact. There we find the cabinet form, in which governing power is vested in the legislative body, which then delegates administrative functions to the cabinet. Charleston, S. C., Elmira, New York, Los Angeles, Cal., are a few of the typical American cities which have successfully adopted the mayor and council form by utilizing the model charter of the National Municipal League.

9 Therefore, in whatever form, the principle of a proper division of functions must be embodied. The Affirmative must admit that, after fifteen years of misrule under the commission form in Sacramento, the freeholders by unanimous choice again adopted distinct legislative and administrative bodies; and that the commission form has lately operated but a few years in a few small cities.

10 Evils in our cities are due to bad social and economic conditions, and to state interference in purely local affairs. In the United States the city may not act except where authorized by the state. In Europe the city may do anything it is not forbidden to do, and municipal success there is based on this freedom. The European city makes its own local laws, not in conflict with, but in addition to, state law. But in the United States the state legislature failed to distinguish between matters of interest to the state government and those of exclusive interest to the cities.

11 The remedy lies in restoring to the city its proper field of legislation. Already thirty states have passed constitutional amendments granting greater legislative powers to the cities. Five states now allow cities to amend their own charters. But in direct opposition to this movement for municipal home rule, the commission form takes the last step in the destruction of the city’s legislative body and fosters continued state interference. President Eliot says that the functions of the commissioners will be defined by the state.

12 We have shown the real causes of municipal evils, and they are to be remedied without tampering with the fundamental principles proved by time and experience. The Affirmative say: change the fundamental principle. The Negative say: retain the principle of distinct legislative and administrative bodies, but observe a proper correlation between them. We would remedy bad social and economic conditions, and, most important of all, give the city greater freedom in powers of local self-government. Source: Adapted and abridged from Elements of Debating, by Leverett S. Lyon, 1919.

Which idea about city government is included in the Affirmative?

Questions 9 through 16 refer to the following passage.

Should American Cities Adopt a Commission Form of
Government?
by Leverett S. Lyon

The Affirmative:

1 During the last quarter-century, municipal organization has trended toward concentration of powers. Some cities have recognized the wisdom of such action, but have unwisely attempted to concentrate only the executive power whereas the real solution lies in concentrating all governmental authority in one responsible body.

2 So evident is the need for this solution that there is now a charter revision committee meeting in New York to consider eliminating the separate council entirely, and creating in its place a small commission possessing both legislative and administrative authority.

3 What is true of New York is true of scores of other cities. Within the past two years more than a dozen states have provided for a commission form of government, while within the past year more than a dozen cities have thrown away their old forms and assumed the commission system.

4 The success of a separate legislative body in state and national government is the only excuse for its retention in our cities, yet such a government is unsuited to modern municipalities. Unlike the state, the work of a city is largely administrative and of a business character, and does not require a separate council to legislate. We do not find, as in the state, the necessity of a large and separate body to represent the various localities. The city has a large population living in a restricted territory; in the state it is scattered.

5 The present principle of separation makes possible concentration of power, without a corresponding concentration of responsibility. When one branch of the government dominates, checks and balances between the departments are lost. The system of checks and balances failed in New York, where the mayor is supreme, and where the city has been plundered of sums estimated at 7 percent of the total valuation of real estate. It failed in St. Louis, where the council dominated, and where “Boss Butler” paid that body $250,000 to pass a street railway franchise. Neither did it work in Philadelphia, which has been plundered of an amount equal to 10 percent of her real estate valuation.

6 Therefore, we must concentrate municipal authority; we must co-ordinate departments, eliminate useless boards and committees and fix individual responsibility. This, we propose to do by establishing a commission form of government, where all governmental authority is vested in one small body of men, who individually act as the heads of administrative departments, but who collectively pass the needed legislation. Thus, instead of a council with restricted powers and divided authority, we have a few men assuming positions of genuine responsibility, as regards both the originating and enforcing of laws.

The Negative:

7 We do not defend the evils of present city organization. We believe that far-reaching reforms must be instituted. The issue then is, does the commission form offer a satisfactory solution of our municipal problems?

8 In many forms today, as the gentlemen have depicted, the relations between the legislative and executive departments are such that responsibility cannot be fixed. But every conspicuous example of municipal success is based upon the proper correlation between these departments. Municipal success in Europe is an established fact. There we find the cabinet form, in which governing power is vested in the legislative body, which then delegates administrative functions to the cabinet. Charleston, S. C., Elmira, New York, Los Angeles, Cal., are a few of the typical American cities which have successfully adopted the mayor and council form by utilizing the model charter of the National Municipal League.

9 Therefore, in whatever form, the principle of a proper division of functions must be embodied. The Affirmative must admit that, after fifteen years of misrule under the commission form in Sacramento, the freeholders by unanimous choice again adopted distinct legislative and administrative bodies; and that the commission form has lately operated but a few years in a few small cities.

10 Evils in our cities are due to bad social and economic conditions, and to state interference in purely local affairs. In the United States the city may not act except where authorized by the state. In Europe the city may do anything it is not forbidden to do, and municipal success there is based on this freedom. The European city makes its own local laws, not in conflict with, but in addition to, state law. But in the United States the state legislature failed to distinguish between matters of interest to the state government and those of exclusive interest to the cities.

11 The remedy lies in restoring to the city its proper field of legislation. Already thirty states have passed constitutional amendments granting greater legislative powers to the cities. Five states now allow cities to amend their own charters. But in direct opposition to this movement for municipal home rule, the commission form takes the last step in the destruction of the city’s legislative body and fosters continued state interference. President Eliot says that the functions of the commissioners will be defined by the state.

12 We have shown the real causes of municipal evils, and they are to be remedied without tampering with the fundamental principles proved by time and experience. The Affirmative say: change the fundamental principle. The Negative say: retain the principle of distinct legislative and administrative bodies, but observe a proper correlation between them. We would remedy bad social and economic conditions, and, most important of all, give the city greater freedom in powers of local self-government. Source: Adapted and abridged from Elements of Debating, by Leverett S. Lyon, 1919.

Which conclusion is supported by the argument of the Negative?

Questions 9 through 16 refer to the following passage.

Should American Cities Adopt a Commission Form of
Government?
by Leverett S. Lyon

The Affirmative:

1 During the last quarter-century, municipal organization has trended toward concentration of powers. Some cities have recognized the wisdom of such action, but have unwisely attempted to concentrate only the executive power whereas the real solution lies in concentrating all governmental authority in one responsible body.

2 So evident is the need for this solution that there is now a charter revision committee meeting in New York to consider eliminating the separate council entirely, and creating in its place a small commission possessing both legislative and administrative authority.

3 What is true of New York is true of scores of other cities. Within the past two years more than a dozen states have provided for a commission form of government, while within the past year more than a dozen cities have thrown away their old forms and assumed the commission system.

4 The success of a separate legislative body in state and national government is the only excuse for its retention in our cities, yet such a government is unsuited to modern municipalities. Unlike the state, the work of a city is largely administrative and of a business character, and does not require a separate council to legislate. We do not find, as in the state, the necessity of a large and separate body to represent the various localities. The city has a large population living in a restricted territory; in the state it is scattered.

5 The present principle of separation makes possible concentration of power, without a corresponding concentration of responsibility. When one branch of the government dominates, checks and balances between the departments are lost. The system of checks and balances failed in New York, where the mayor is supreme, and where the city has been plundered of sums estimated at 7 percent of the total valuation of real estate. It failed in St. Louis, where the council dominated, and where “Boss Butler” paid that body $250,000 to pass a street railway franchise. Neither did it work in Philadelphia, which has been plundered of an amount equal to 10 percent of her real estate valuation.

6 Therefore, we must concentrate municipal authority; we must co-ordinate departments, eliminate useless boards and committees and fix individual responsibility. This, we propose to do by establishing a commission form of government, where all governmental authority is vested in one small body of men, who individually act as the heads of administrative departments, but who collectively pass the needed legislation. Thus, instead of a council with restricted powers and divided authority, we have a few men assuming positions of genuine responsibility, as regards both the originating and enforcing of laws.

The Negative:

7 We do not defend the evils of present city organization. We believe that far-reaching reforms must be instituted. The issue then is, does the commission form offer a satisfactory solution of our municipal problems?

8 In many forms today, as the gentlemen have depicted, the relations between the legislative and executive departments are such that responsibility cannot be fixed. But every conspicuous example of municipal success is based upon the proper correlation between these departments. Municipal success in Europe is an established fact. There we find the cabinet form, in which governing power is vested in the legislative body, which then delegates administrative functions to the cabinet. Charleston, S. C., Elmira, New York, Los Angeles, Cal., are a few of the typical American cities which have successfully adopted the mayor and council form by utilizing the model charter of the National Municipal League.

9 Therefore, in whatever form, the principle of a proper division of functions must be embodied. The Affirmative must admit that, after fifteen years of misrule under the commission form in Sacramento, the freeholders by unanimous choice again adopted distinct legislative and administrative bodies; and that the commission form has lately operated but a few years in a few small cities.

10 Evils in our cities are due to bad social and economic conditions, and to state interference in purely local affairs. In the United States the city may not act except where authorized by the state. In Europe the city may do anything it is not forbidden to do, and municipal success there is based on this freedom. The European city makes its own local laws, not in conflict with, but in addition to, state law. But in the United States the state legislature failed to distinguish between matters of interest to the state government and those of exclusive interest to the cities.

11 The remedy lies in restoring to the city its proper field of legislation. Already thirty states have passed constitutional amendments granting greater legislative powers to the cities. Five states now allow cities to amend their own charters. But in direct opposition to this movement for municipal home rule, the commission form takes the last step in the destruction of the city’s legislative body and fosters continued state interference. President Eliot says that the functions of the commissioners will be defined by the state.

12 We have shown the real causes of municipal evils, and they are to be remedied without tampering with the fundamental principles proved by time and experience. The Affirmative say: change the fundamental principle. The Negative say: retain the principle of distinct legislative and administrative bodies, but observe a proper correlation between them. We would remedy bad social and economic conditions, and, most important of all, give the city greater freedom in powers of local self-government. Source: Adapted and abridged from Elements of Debating, by Leverett S. Lyon, 1919.

Read the following sentence from paragraph 11:

Already thirty states have passed constitutional amendments granting greater legislative powers to the cities.

What idea mentioned by the Negative does this sentence support?

Questions 9 through 16 refer to the following passage.

Should American Cities Adopt a Commission Form of
Government?
by Leverett S. Lyon

The Affirmative:

1 During the last quarter-century, municipal organization has trended toward concentration of powers. Some cities have recognized the wisdom of such action, but have unwisely attempted to concentrate only the executive power whereas the real solution lies in concentrating all governmental authority in one responsible body.

2 So evident is the need for this solution that there is now a charter revision committee meeting in New York to consider eliminating the separate council entirely, and creating in its place a small commission possessing both legislative and administrative authority.

3 What is true of New York is true of scores of other cities. Within the past two years more than a dozen states have provided for a commission form of government, while within the past year more than a dozen cities have thrown away their old forms and assumed the commission system.

4 The success of a separate legislative body in state and national government is the only excuse for its retention in our cities, yet such a government is unsuited to modern municipalities. Unlike the state, the work of a city is largely administrative and of a business character, and does not require a separate council to legislate. We do not find, as in the state, the necessity of a large and separate body to represent the various localities. The city has a large population living in a restricted territory; in the state it is scattered.

5 The present principle of separation makes possible concentration of power, without a corresponding concentration of responsibility. When one branch of the government dominates, checks and balances between the departments are lost. The system of checks and balances failed in New York, where the mayor is supreme, and where the city has been plundered of sums estimated at 7 percent of the total valuation of real estate. It failed in St. Louis, where the council dominated, and where “Boss Butler” paid that body $250,000 to pass a street railway franchise. Neither did it work in Philadelphia, which has been plundered of an amount equal to 10 percent of her real estate valuation.

6 Therefore, we must concentrate municipal authority; we must co-ordinate departments, eliminate useless boards and committees and fix individual responsibility. This, we propose to do by establishing a commission form of government, where all governmental authority is vested in one small body of men, who individually act as the heads of administrative departments, but who collectively pass the needed legislation. Thus, instead of a council with restricted powers and divided authority, we have a few men assuming positions of genuine responsibility, as regards both the originating and enforcing of laws.

The Negative:

7 We do not defend the evils of present city organization. We believe that far-reaching reforms must be instituted. The issue then is, does the commission form offer a satisfactory solution of our municipal problems?

8 In many forms today, as the gentlemen have depicted, the relations between the legislative and executive departments are such that responsibility cannot be fixed. But every conspicuous example of municipal success is based upon the proper correlation between these departments. Municipal success in Europe is an established fact. There we find the cabinet form, in which governing power is vested in the legislative body, which then delegates administrative functions to the cabinet. Charleston, S. C., Elmira, New York, Los Angeles, Cal., are a few of the typical American cities which have successfully adopted the mayor and council form by utilizing the model charter of the National Municipal League.

9 Therefore, in whatever form, the principle of a proper division of functions must be embodied. The Affirmative must admit that, after fifteen years of misrule under the commission form in Sacramento, the freeholders by unanimous choice again adopted distinct legislative and administrative bodies; and that the commission form has lately operated but a few years in a few small cities.

10 Evils in our cities are due to bad social and economic conditions, and to state interference in purely local affairs. In the United States the city may not act except where authorized by the state. In Europe the city may do anything it is not forbidden to do, and municipal success there is based on this freedom. The European city makes its own local laws, not in conflict with, but in addition to, state law. But in the United States the state legislature failed to distinguish between matters of interest to the state government and those of exclusive interest to the cities.

11 The remedy lies in restoring to the city its proper field of legislation. Already thirty states have passed constitutional amendments granting greater legislative powers to the cities. Five states now allow cities to amend their own charters. But in direct opposition to this movement for municipal home rule, the commission form takes the last step in the destruction of the city’s legislative body and fosters continued state interference. President Eliot says that the functions of the commissioners will be defined by the state.

12 We have shown the real causes of municipal evils, and they are to be remedied without tampering with the fundamental principles proved by time and experience. The Affirmative say: change the fundamental principle. The Negative say: retain the principle of distinct legislative and administrative bodies, but observe a proper correlation between them. We would remedy bad social and economic conditions, and, most important of all, give the city greater freedom in powers of local self-government. Source: Adapted and abridged from Elements of Debating, by Leverett S. Lyon, 1919.

Which detail in the Negative’s argument supports the idea that there are disadvantages associated with the commission form of government?

Questions 9 through 16 refer to the following passage.

Should American Cities Adopt a Commission Form of
Government?
by Leverett S. Lyon

The Affirmative:

1 During the last quarter-century, municipal organization has trended toward concentration of powers. Some cities have recognized the wisdom of such action, but have unwisely attempted to concentrate only the executive power whereas the real solution lies in concentrating all governmental authority in one responsible body.

2 So evident is the need for this solution that there is now a charter revision committee meeting in New York to consider eliminating the separate council entirely, and creating in its place a small commission possessing both legislative and administrative authority.

3 What is true of New York is true of scores of other cities. Within the past two years more than a dozen states have provided for a commission form of government, while within the past year more than a dozen cities have thrown away their old forms and assumed the commission system.

4 The success of a separate legislative body in state and national government is the only excuse for its retention in our cities, yet such a government is unsuited to modern municipalities. Unlike the state, the work of a city is largely administrative and of a business character, and does not require a separate council to legislate. We do not find, as in the state, the necessity of a large and separate body to represent the various localities. The city has a large population living in a restricted territory; in the state it is scattered.

5 The present principle of separation makes possible concentration of power, without a corresponding concentration of responsibility. When one branch of the government dominates, checks and balances between the departments are lost. The system of checks and balances failed in New York, where the mayor is supreme, and where the city has been plundered of sums estimated at 7 percent of the total valuation of real estate. It failed in St. Louis, where the council dominated, and where “Boss Butler” paid that body $250,000 to pass a street railway franchise. Neither did it work in Philadelphia, which has been plundered of an amount equal to 10 percent of her real estate valuation.

6 Therefore, we must concentrate municipal authority; we must co-ordinate departments, eliminate useless boards and committees and fix individual responsibility. This, we propose to do by establishing a commission form of government, where all governmental authority is vested in one small body of men, who individually act as the heads of administrative departments, but who collectively pass the needed legislation. Thus, instead of a council with restricted powers and divided authority, we have a few men assuming positions of genuine responsibility, as regards both the originating and enforcing of laws.

The Negative:

7 We do not defend the evils of present city organization. We believe that far-reaching reforms must be instituted. The issue then is, does the commission form offer a satisfactory solution of our municipal problems?

8 In many forms today, as the gentlemen have depicted, the relations between the legislative and executive departments are such that responsibility cannot be fixed. But every conspicuous example of municipal success is based upon the proper correlation between these departments. Municipal success in Europe is an established fact. There we find the cabinet form, in which governing power is vested in the legislative body, which then delegates administrative functions to the cabinet. Charleston, S. C., Elmira, New York, Los Angeles, Cal., are a few of the typical American cities which have successfully adopted the mayor and council form by utilizing the model charter of the National Municipal League.

9 Therefore, in whatever form, the principle of a proper division of functions must be embodied. The Affirmative must admit that, after fifteen years of misrule under the commission form in Sacramento, the freeholders by unanimous choice again adopted distinct legislative and administrative bodies; and that the commission form has lately operated but a few years in a few small cities.

10 Evils in our cities are due to bad social and economic conditions, and to state interference in purely local affairs. In the United States the city may not act except where authorized by the state. In Europe the city may do anything it is not forbidden to do, and municipal success there is based on this freedom. The European city makes its own local laws, not in conflict with, but in addition to, state law. But in the United States the state legislature failed to distinguish between matters of interest to the state government and those of exclusive interest to the cities.

11 The remedy lies in restoring to the city its proper field of legislation. Already thirty states have passed constitutional amendments granting greater legislative powers to the cities. Five states now allow cities to amend their own charters. But in direct opposition to this movement for municipal home rule, the commission form takes the last step in the destruction of the city’s legislative body and fosters continued state interference. President Eliot says that the functions of the commissioners will be defined by the state.

12 We have shown the real causes of municipal evils, and they are to be remedied without tampering with the fundamental principles proved by time and experience. The Affirmative say: change the fundamental principle. The Negative say: retain the principle of distinct legislative and administrative bodies, but observe a proper correlation between them. We would remedy bad social and economic conditions, and, most important of all, give the city greater freedom in powers of local self-government. Source: Adapted and abridged from Elements of Debating, by Leverett S. Lyon, 1919.

How does the Negative build the argument that the Affirmative’s position is incorrect?

Questions 9 through 16 refer to the following passage.

Should American Cities Adopt a Commission Form of
Government?
by Leverett S. Lyon

The Affirmative:

1 During the last quarter-century, municipal organization has trended toward concentration of powers. Some cities have recognized the wisdom of such action, but have unwisely attempted to concentrate only the executive power whereas the real solution lies in concentrating all governmental authority in one responsible body.

2 So evident is the need for this solution that there is now a charter revision committee meeting in New York to consider eliminating the separate council entirely, and creating in its place a small commission possessing both legislative and administrative authority.

3 What is true of New York is true of scores of other cities. Within the past two years more than a dozen states have provided for a commission form of government, while within the past year more than a dozen cities have thrown away their old forms and assumed the commission system.

4 The success of a separate legislative body in state and national government is the only excuse for its retention in our cities, yet such a government is unsuited to modern municipalities. Unlike the state, the work of a city is largely administrative and of a business character, and does not require a separate council to legislate. We do not find, as in the state, the necessity of a large and separate body to represent the various localities. The city has a large population living in a restricted territory; in the state it is scattered.

5 The present principle of separation makes possible concentration of power, without a corresponding concentration of responsibility. When one branch of the government dominates, checks and balances between the departments are lost. The system of checks and balances failed in New York, where the mayor is supreme, and where the city has been plundered of sums estimated at 7 percent of the total valuation of real estate. It failed in St. Louis, where the council dominated, and where “Boss Butler” paid that body $250,000 to pass a street railway franchise. Neither did it work in Philadelphia, which has been plundered of an amount equal to 10 percent of her real estate valuation.

6 Therefore, we must concentrate municipal authority; we must co-ordinate departments, eliminate useless boards and committees and fix individual responsibility. This, we propose to do by establishing a commission form of government, where all governmental authority is vested in one small body of men, who individually act as the heads of administrative departments, but who collectively pass the needed legislation. Thus, instead of a council with restricted powers and divided authority, we have a few men assuming positions of genuine responsibility, as regards both the originating and enforcing of laws.

The Negative:

7 We do not defend the evils of present city organization. We believe that far-reaching reforms must be instituted. The issue then is, does the commission form offer a satisfactory solution of our municipal problems?

8 In many forms today, as the gentlemen have depicted, the relations between the legislative and executive departments are such that responsibility cannot be fixed. But every conspicuous example of municipal success is based upon the proper correlation between these departments. Municipal success in Europe is an established fact. There we find the cabinet form, in which governing power is vested in the legislative body, which then delegates administrative functions to the cabinet. Charleston, S. C., Elmira, New York, Los Angeles, Cal., are a few of the typical American cities which have successfully adopted the mayor and council form by utilizing the model charter of the National Municipal League.

9 Therefore, in whatever form, the principle of a proper division of functions must be embodied. The Affirmative must admit that, after fifteen years of misrule under the commission form in Sacramento, the freeholders by unanimous choice again adopted distinct legislative and administrative bodies; and that the commission form has lately operated but a few years in a few small cities.

10 Evils in our cities are due to bad social and economic conditions, and to state interference in purely local affairs. In the United States the city may not act except where authorized by the state. In Europe the city may do anything it is not forbidden to do, and municipal success there is based on this freedom. The European city makes its own local laws, not in conflict with, but in addition to, state law. But in the United States the state legislature failed to distinguish between matters of interest to the state government and those of exclusive interest to the cities.

11 The remedy lies in restoring to the city its proper field of legislation. Already thirty states have passed constitutional amendments granting greater legislative powers to the cities. Five states now allow cities to amend their own charters. But in direct opposition to this movement for municipal home rule, the commission form takes the last step in the destruction of the city’s legislative body and fosters continued state interference. President Eliot says that the functions of the commissioners will be defined by the state.

12 We have shown the real causes of municipal evils, and they are to be remedied without tampering with the fundamental principles proved by time and experience. The Affirmative say: change the fundamental principle. The Negative say: retain the principle of distinct legislative and administrative bodies, but observe a proper correlation between them. We would remedy bad social and economic conditions, and, most important of all, give the city greater freedom in powers of local self-government. Source: Adapted and abridged from Elements of Debating, by Leverett S. Lyon, 1919.

How are the conclusions of the Affirmative and the Negative similar?

Questions 9 through 16 refer to the following passage.

Should American Cities Adopt a Commission Form of
Government?
by Leverett S. Lyon

The Affirmative:

1 During the last quarter-century, municipal organization has trended toward concentration of powers. Some cities have recognized the wisdom of such action, but have unwisely attempted to concentrate only the executive power whereas the real solution lies in concentrating all governmental authority in one responsible body.

2 So evident is the need for this solution that there is now a charter revision committee meeting in New York to consider eliminating the separate council entirely, and creating in its place a small commission possessing both legislative and administrative authority.

3 What is true of New York is true of scores of other cities. Within the past two years more than a dozen states have provided for a commission form of government, while within the past year more than a dozen cities have thrown away their old forms and assumed the commission system.

4 The success of a separate legislative body in state and national government is the only excuse for its retention in our cities, yet such a government is unsuited to modern municipalities. Unlike the state, the work of a city is largely administrative and of a business character, and does not require a separate council to legislate. We do not find, as in the state, the necessity of a large and separate body to represent the various localities. The city has a large population living in a restricted territory; in the state it is scattered.

5 The present principle of separation makes possible concentration of power, without a corresponding concentration of responsibility. When one branch of the government dominates, checks and balances between the departments are lost. The system of checks and balances failed in New York, where the mayor is supreme, and where the city has been plundered of sums estimated at 7 percent of the total valuation of real estate. It failed in St. Louis, where the council dominated, and where “Boss Butler” paid that body $250,000 to pass a street railway franchise. Neither did it work in Philadelphia, which has been plundered of an amount equal to 10 percent of her real estate valuation.

6 Therefore, we must concentrate municipal authority; we must co-ordinate departments, eliminate useless boards and committees and fix individual responsibility. This, we propose to do by establishing a commission form of government, where all governmental authority is vested in one small body of men, who individually act as the heads of administrative departments, but who collectively pass the needed legislation. Thus, instead of a council with restricted powers and divided authority, we have a few men assuming positions of genuine responsibility, as regards both the originating and enforcing of laws.

The Negative:

7 We do not defend the evils of present city organization. We believe that far-reaching reforms must be instituted. The issue then is, does the commission form offer a satisfactory solution of our municipal problems?

8 In many forms today, as the gentlemen have depicted, the relations between the legislative and executive departments are such that responsibility cannot be fixed. But every conspicuous example of municipal success is based upon the proper correlation between these departments. Municipal success in Europe is an established fact. There we find the cabinet form, in which governing power is vested in the legislative body, which then delegates administrative functions to the cabinet. Charleston, S. C., Elmira, New York, Los Angeles, Cal., are a few of the typical American cities which have successfully adopted the mayor and council form by utilizing the model charter of the National Municipal League.

9 Therefore, in whatever form, the principle of a proper division of functions must be embodied. The Affirmative must admit that, after fifteen years of misrule under the commission form in Sacramento, the freeholders by unanimous choice again adopted distinct legislative and administrative bodies; and that the commission form has lately operated but a few years in a few small cities.

10 Evils in our cities are due to bad social and economic conditions, and to state interference in purely local affairs. In the United States the city may not act except where authorized by the state. In Europe the city may do anything it is not forbidden to do, and municipal success there is based on this freedom. The European city makes its own local laws, not in conflict with, but in addition to, state law. But in the United States the state legislature failed to distinguish between matters of interest to the state government and those of exclusive interest to the cities.

11 The remedy lies in restoring to the city its proper field of legislation. Already thirty states have passed constitutional amendments granting greater legislative powers to the cities. Five states now allow cities to amend their own charters. But in direct opposition to this movement for municipal home rule, the commission form takes the last step in the destruction of the city’s legislative body and fosters continued state interference. President Eliot says that the functions of the commissioners will be defined by the state.

12 We have shown the real causes of municipal evils, and they are to be remedied without tampering with the fundamental principles proved by time and experience. The Affirmative say: change the fundamental principle. The Negative say: retain the principle of distinct legislative and administrative bodies, but observe a proper correlation between them. We would remedy bad social and economic conditions, and, most important of all, give the city greater freedom in powers of local self-government. Source: Adapted and abridged from Elements of Debating, by Leverett S. Lyon, 1919.

Based on the information in the two articles, the Affirmative and the Negative share which perspective?

The passage below is incomplete. For each “Select” option, choose the option that correctly completes the sentence. (For this practice test, circle your selection.)

September 20, 2011
Ms. Celine Margot
Chair, AIM Foundation
1235 Deer Park Road
Rochester, NY
Dear Ms. Margot,

I was so honored to meet you last week at the AIM Foundation
Benefit. When I walked in the door, I had no idea I was about to
be introduced to a Phi Kappa sister: Although, I should not really
have been surprised; the members of our sorority

their works of charity. I was touched to hear the outreach that
AIM is doing, helping poor villages in several countries have
access to clean water. Clearly, your foundation has a
commitment to bettering the lives of those communities who live
closest to subsistence level.

As we discussed that night, my company, Clear Image, has great
experience helping organizations

we have been at the forefront of social media and viral image
marketing and during that time the clients we have had range
from Fortune 500 companies to philanthropic fraternities. We
produce content highlighting your activities via blogs and user

collect news reports with a bearing on your organization’s goals.
After we connected at the fundraiser, it occurred to me that with
AIM approaching 10 whole years of community service, the time
would be right for a major media push touting AIM’s
accomplishments to date. We have, in fact, initiated special
media events for several companies. As AIM’s 10th anniversary
nears, your board of directors has probably been considering
ways to make that anniversary special. To that end, I suggest we
meet so that I could present some of the promotional work we
have done and give you a sense of the nuances of what ____DROPDOWN_________
offer. Clear Image might be the perfect partner to
handle the celebration of “10 Years of AIM.”
Feel free to call me at 748-555-2398 if you’d like to explore how
Clear Image can make AIM more prominent in the world of
philanthropy.

Yours truly,
Misha Ayakusi
Coordinator, Philanthropy & Social Service Image Enhancement