How can critical debate in Parliament compel government to take better decisions?

Correct answer: Government has to give reasons, evidence, and answers

Correct answer: A. Parliamentary debate places government proposals under public and institutional scrutiny. Ministers may be asked questions, challenged about evidence, required to explain likely effects and pressed to respond to criticism from members. This process can reveal omissions, unfair effects, impractical provisions or financial concerns before or during implementation. The government may then clarify, amend or reconsider a proposal, and the record of debate helps citizens judge its performance. A debate does not mean that every criticism must be accepted, but it makes decision-makers answerable and encourages more informed decisions. B is the opposite of accountability, so it is wrong. C is wrong because Parliament makes laws and scrutinises the executive; it does not itself become the executive merely by debating. D is wrong because the judiciary interprets law and protects constitutional limits, while budget proposals are handled through the constitutional financial process. Memory cue: scrutiny asks “why, how and with what evidence?” and accountability requires an answer.