Congressman: The amount of money donated each year to the campaigns

MartyTargetTestPrep

After discarding options A C and D . I was down to B and E. I chose B , as that was the link that clicked in my mind as soon as i read the argument.

BUT, i think i can make an argument for E too.
Past pattern : the candidate who has received the most donated money has won.
conclusion : Only after changing campaign finance laws so that they better combat the money driven nature of today’s electoral process will we have a situation such that elections generally result in the most qualified candidates winning.
The conclusion can also be restated as : there is NO OTHER WAY than changing finance laws to get that situation.

In this interpretation we are assuming that there is no other way along with the assumption of CNDITION NO EXISTING ie, even if we dont cahnge finance laws (that asumption is B)

Option E.: There is no way for the average voter to determine which of the candidates in an election is the most qualified for the office the candidates are seeking.
NOW if we negate this by saying : there is a way for the avg voter bla bla bla, Then the condition "only after" does not stand UNLESS the way that we are speaking in E about is the finance way.. That is the avg candidate judges the candidate by the means of amount spent by the candidate !!! If this the case then E is not an assumption. If this is not the case then E is the assumtion
Additionally, Option E alks about "knowing" who is the best candidate but are we sure that the voters vote the same guy?? or are they drawn to money?/

NOW assumptions have to be true for the conclusion to be sound. In this test E doesnt fit in and B wins...

I wsh to know if my reasoning is right, if not please correct me and while doing s please be elaborative !! Thankyou
generis your views on this one

There is a key issue with E.

The argument is about the influence of money on who gets elected.

E is about whether there is a way, ANY WAY, for the average voter to determine which candidate is the most qualified.

Whether money unduly influences election results and whether there is some way for the average voter to determine which candidate is the most qualified are related but different topics.

Consider the following.

It could be the case that it would be relatively easy for a voter to determine which candidate is most qualified, by doing some research online, for instance, and yet voters do not bother to do so. In such a case, even though voters COULD determine which candidate is most qualified, they don't and, instead, are influenced by well-funded campaigns.

It could also be the case that it is difficult for the average voter to determine which candidate is most qualified, and yet still possible. In such a case, it may be easy to win an election by using a well-funded campaign, and yet, even still, it would not be true that there is NO WAY for the average voter to determine which candidate is most qualified.

So, making the argument that only through changing campaign finance laws will we have a situation such that elections generally result in the most qualified candidates winning does not require assuming that there is NO WAY for the average voter to determine which candidate is most qualified.

I hope that the above effectively addresses your query. If not, please let me know.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.