venkateshraviraj wrote:
Many local town governments in New England still practice direct democracy where the population of the town votes to resolve issues. Critics of these town councils argue that well-funded special interest groups are able to influence these large open referenda.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the critics’ argument?
A. Groups that oppose well-funded special interest groups do not have the budgets to mount major media campaigns in local markets.
B. Direct elections are not effective because individual citizens do not have as much knowledge as professional legislators.
C. Since individual voters make the decision, direct democracy provides insurance against the influence of wealthy special interest groups.
D. Local newspapers and TV stations tend to be biased in favor of special interest groups and provide unbalanced reporting to local citizens.
E. Decisions by local town governments usually are in line with the views of well-funded special interest.
(A) This answer suggests that well-funded special interest groups have undue influence because groups that oppose them have limited funding.
(B) may well be true, but it doesn’t support the argument.
(C) Even if people are wealthy, it doesn’t mean that they support the interests of well-funded groups. For example, unions may be well funded, but they usually are not representing the interests of the wealthy.
(D) suggests that media may be biased in the favor of special interest groups, but it does not tell you which ones. The question asks about well-funded special interest groups, and we don’t know that these are well-funded groups.
(E) isn’t relevant to the argument.
Choice (A) is the best answer.