Passage Summary: A political party says spending more on education is a great idea, but then says the government shouldn't actually do it. The author thinks this is a total contradiction.

Conclusion: The political party's policy regarding education spending is clearly contradictory.

Reasoning: The party has stated that increasing education spending is a worthy goal while simultaneously claiming the government should not increase that spending.

Analysis: The author is assuming that there is no way to believe a goal is 'worthy' while also believing the government shouldn't be the one to fund it. Perhaps the party thinks education is a worthy goal for private donors or local communities, but not for the federal government. To prove the party is 'inconsistent,' the argument needs to assume that if you think a goal is worthy, you must also believe the government should spend money on it. Look for an assumption that bridges the gap between a goal's worthiness and the government's obligation to fund it.