Order the sentences to form a coherent paragraph. A. He felt justified in…

Concept: How to order a jumbled paragraph

A scrambled set of sentences is reconstructed by first finding the sentence that states the general context or topic and placing it first, then chaining every other sentence onto the one before it: a specific claim follows the general context it particularises, a supporting detail follows the claim it elaborates, and a conclusion or consequence comes only after the details that justify it. No sentence should need information from a later sentence to make sense.

Applying it here

1. Sentence E states the general context: representative democracy is inherently contentious, and an executive figure (“CEO of the White House”) resents a second-guessing legislature - this frames the whole paragraph, so it opens the sequence.

2. Sentence C narrows this general context to the specific subject, Bush, and states his motive: he wanted to restore power to the Presidency - a direct particularisation of the “CEO” framing in E.

3. Sentence D elaborates that motive by scoping his opposition: he was not fighting just the Democrats - this only makes sense once C has established that his goal was about presidential authority broadly, not partisan politics.

4. Sentence B extends D's claim with a concrete degree: at times, he was fighting the entire Congress - a natural continuation that intensifies “not just the Democrats” into “the entire Congress”.

5. Sentence A supplies the resulting conclusion: he felt justified in bypassing Congress altogether - a consequence that only follows once the scope of his conflict with Congress (D, B) has been established.

So the sequence is E → C → D → B → A (ECDBA), reading as one unbroken chain from context to motive to scope to consequence.

Why the other orders break down

• CAEDB places the conclusion (“he felt justified in bypassing Congress”) as the second sentence, right after the mission sentence, before either sentence that establishes who he opposed or how far that opposition went - so the conclusion is reached before its supporting specifics exist, and those specifics only appear afterward, as an afterthought.

• DBAEC opens with the claim that Bush was not fighting only the Democrats - a qualifying claim that presupposes some broader claim was already on the table, though nothing precedes it here to qualify. It also places the mission sentence last, so the reason for his actions is revealed only after the action and its justification have already been described.

• CEADB puts the mission sentence first and follows it immediately with the general observation about representative democracy, so a broad, scene-setting claim appears abruptly in the middle of an already-specific narrative rather than reading as a natural continuation of it. The conclusion sentence then appears before either sentence describing the scope of his opposition, leaving it without supporting detail at that point in the sequence.