Many state legislatures are considering proposals to the effect that

D. C is tempting but out of scope - what does "security" mean? The argument only talks about "access."

Also agree second is C. A is irrelevant - and neutral to the critics' argument. B weakens the critics' argument. D at least talks about "special-interest groups" but doesn't specifically say they are the "wealthy" ones - those are the ones the critics are concerned about - neutral at best, possibly weakens. E is also irrelevant - the concern is undue influence of wealthy groups, not what the TV stations think (although we know in the real world that a station could decline to play a political ad... that's outside info). Neutral at best, possibly weakens.

at first, I chose C. However, I still do not the evidence to prove that the audience will be biased by the advertising, so whether the proponent of proposals can advertise on TV or not does not do anything to the conclusion to me.

One of the toughest CR questions and not enough attention to it...

Can anyone explain to me why choice B - is incorrect?

The critics hint at the point that results of referenda can be altered by wealthy groups interests, who have mass-media coverage.
The question is, in the current system, when voters vote for legislators, is somehow the same problem avoided? The choice B states so, Ithink its a better pick than C.

Anyone?

GMATNinja egmat

VeritasKarishma mam can you please explain this CR question
Even though this is a 500-600 level question I found it tricky and tough

Dear VeritasKarishma

I am afraid you misunderstood choice B, its not irrelevant, because some people proposed referenda as an alternative to regular legislature voting, another group of people found flaw in referenda system, if we prove that the same flaw is not present in legislature voting system we strengthen their position, not weaken

Posted from my mobile device

Option (B) talks about "elections for members of the legislature" which is a different election from "taking votes on policies". What works or doesn't work during one type of election may not be relevant to another type of election. Fro example, if tv ads have no impact on "elections for members of the legislature", we cannot say they will have no impact on "taking votes on policies".
Also, option (B) talks about the impact on number of people who vote. We are concerned about how people will vote (whether ads will bias their opinion).
Hence option (B) has no relevance to our conclusion.

Understanding the argument -
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. - Fact
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. - Conclusion + supporting premise

Option Elimination - Strengthen
The scope of the argument is to Strengthen the conclusion, which is that "the outcomes of public referenda would be biased."

(A) Many state legislators regard public referenda as a way of avoiding voting on issues on which their constituents are divided. - the view of legislatures is out of scope. The scope of the argument is to Strengthen the conclusion, which is that "the outcomes of public referenda would be biased" and not what legislatures regard.

(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. - "elections" is out of scope.

(C) Proponents of policies that are opposed by wealthy special-interest groups are often unable to afford advertising time on local television stations. - ok. Then certainly, the outcomes would be biased as people don't evaluate the policies that are opposed by the wealthy.

(D) Different special-interest groups often take opposing positions on questions of which policies the state should adopt. - They take opposing or same viewpoints, is out of scope. Our scope is to Strengthen the conclusion, which is that "the outcomes of public referenda would be biased."

(E) Television stations are reluctant to become associated with any one political opinion, for fear of losing viewers who do not share that opinion. - if they are reluctant and share both sides, then it can't be biased, and at best, it's the opposite of what we need.