Bunuel wrote:
Many state legislatures are considering proposals to the effect that certain policies should be determined not by the legislature itself but by public referenda in which every voter can take part. Critics of the proposals argue that the outcomes of public referenda would be biased, since wealthy special-interest groups are able to influence voters’ views by means of television advertisements.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the critics’ argument?
(A) Many state legislators regard public referenda as a way of avoiding voting on issues on which their constituents are divided.
(B) During elections for members of the legislature, the number of people who vote is unaffected by whether the candidates run television advertisements or not.
(C) Proponents of policies that are opposed by wealthy special-interest groups are often unable to afford advertising time on local television stations.
(D) Different special-interest groups often take opposing positions on questions of which policies the state should adopt.
(E) Television stations are reluctant to become associated with any one political opinion, for fear of losing viewers who do not share that opinion.
The govt is considering a proposal that certain policies should be determined not by the govt but by public voting.
Critics of the proposals argue that wealthy people will take out TV ads and influence public opinion on issues that favour them. So the outcome will be biased in favour of wealthy.
What will strengthen the critics' argument? Something that tells us yes, the outcome will be biased in favour of wealthy.
(A) Many state legislators regard public referenda as a way of avoiding voting on issues on which their constituents are divided.
Doesn't tell us why the vote will be biased toward the wealthy.
(B) During elections for members of the legislature, the number of people who vote is unaffected by whether the candidates run television advertisements or not.
What happens during elections is irrelevant. In any case, even if this does tell us that tv ads are not effective, that would weaken our argument, not strengthen.
(C) Proponents of policies that are opposed by wealthy special-interest groups are often unable to afford advertising time on local television stations.
Correct. Wealthy will run tv ads but their opposition often not able to afford tv ads. So only the wealthy will be able to influence people. This increases the likelihood that the public will be influenced by the opinion of the rich.
(D) Different special-interest groups often take opposing positions on questions of which policies the state should adopt.
Doesn't matter. The point is whether the wealthy special interest grps will get an advantage.
(E) Television stations are reluctant to become associated with any one political opinion, for fear of losing viewers who do not share that opinion.
This seems to say that tv stations will not allow bias to happen so it does not strengthen our argument.
Answer (C)
_________________
Karishma Bansal - ANA PREP
*SUPER SUNDAYS!* - FREE Access to ALL Resources EVERY Sunday
REGISTER at ANA PREP
(Includes access to Study Modules, Concept Videos, Practice Questions and LIVE Classes)
YouTube Channel
youtube.com/karishma.anaprep