If a main motion, a proposed amendment to it, and a motion to refer are all pending, which form of the previous question is not in order?

The correct choice highlights a principle from parliamentary procedure regarding how the previous question, or a motion to end debate, can be applied in relation to pending motions. In this case, if there are three motions pending— a main motion, a proposed amendment to that motion, and a motion to refer— the parliamentary rules dictate how the previous question can be ordered.

When a motion to order the previous question is made, it can only be directed toward the motions that are actually on the floor for consideration. In this scenario, the motion to refer is a subsidiary motion that specifically relates to the main motion and is itself subject to debate. However, ordering the previous question on both the main motion and the motion to refer simultaneously would be inappropriate because it does not allow for clear decision-making or voting on the motions as separate entities. Instead, the assembly can only order the previous question on the main motion or the amendment to it, prior to resolving the motion to refer.

In contrast, limiting debate on the motion to refer, tabling the amendment, or delaying the vote are all forms of motions that can logically pertain to and be applied appropriately within the context of the pending main motion and amendment. These processes align with the permitted parliamentary actions as they do not