Editorialist: Advertisers devote millions of dollars to the attempt to instill attitudes and desires that lead people to purchase particular products, and advertisers’ techniques have been adopted by political strategists in democratic countries, who are paid to manipulate public opinion in every political campaign. Thus, the results of elections in democratic countries cannot be viewed as representing the unadulterated preferences of the people.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the editorialist’s argument?
We need to find a choice that is in line to what passage says in its last sentence.
(A) Public opinion can be manipulated more easily by officials of nondemocratic governments than by those of democratic governments. - WRONG. A comparison is irrelevant but this is such that it weakens the argument.
(B) Advertisers’ techniques are often apparent to the people to whom the advertisements are directed. - WRONG. If apparent then people vote without bias, thus weakening the argument.
(C) Many democratic countries have laws limiting the amount that may be spent on political advertisements in any given election. - WRONG. Spending curtailed, adulteration curtailed. Weakens.
(D) People who neither watch television nor read any print media are more likely to vote than people who do one or both of these activities. - WRONG. If those who are influenced by the advertisements don't(more likely) vote, then unadulterated results it is. Weakener.
(E) Unlike advertisements for consumer products, most of which only reinforce existing beliefs, political advertisements often change voters’ beliefs. - CORRECT. POE - the right answer. Though a comparison, without which we could have still traversed smoothly to choose this as right answer, the crux of the choice is simliar to that of passage that the results do get influenced by ads.
Answer E.
_________________
Pain + Reflection = Progress | Ray Dalio
Good Books to read prior to MBA