Political advocate: Campaigns for elective office should be subsidized

Clear C. Of the two reasons cited, the critic says that if 2 happens, 1 won't happen.

Posted from my mobile device

Political advocate: Campaigns for elective office should be subsidized with public funds. One reason is that this would allow politicians to devote less time to fund-raising, thus giving campaigning incumbents more time to serve the public. A second reason is that such subsidies would make it possible to set caps on individual campaign contributions, thereby reducing the likelihood that elected officials will be working for the benefit not of the public but of individual large contributors.

Critic: This argument is problematic: the more the caps constrain contributions, the more time candidates have to spend finding more small contributors.

Stimulus: The stimulus states that the advocate campaigns for elective office should be subsidized with public funds as this would allow politicians to spend more time gathering funds from public and in return serving them which would help public. The second reason is this would allow caping for individual contributions thereby limiting the chances of serving the individual rather than public. The critic states the cap restrain would make them look for smaller contributions and thereby spending most of the time to look for contributions rather than serving public

The critic objects that the advocate’s argument is flawed because


(A) any resourceful large contributor can circumvent caps on individual contributions by sending in smaller amounts under various names

(B) one of the projected results cited in support of the proposal made is entailed by the other and therefore does not constitute independent support of the proposal

(C) of the two projected results cited in support of the proposal made, one works against the other. IMO C

(D) it overlooks the possibility that large contributors will stop contributing if they cannot contribute at will

(E) it overlooks the possibility that incumbents with a few extremely generous contributors will be hit harder by caps than incumbents with many moderately generous contributors

Political advocate: Campaigns for elective office should be subsidized with public funds. One reason is that this would allow politicians to devote less time to fund-raising, thus giving campaigning incumbents more time to serve the public. A second reason is that such subsidies would make it possible to set caps on individual campaign contributions, thereby reducing the likelihood that elected officials will be working for the benefit not of the public but of individual large contributors.

Critic: This argument is problematic: the more the caps constrain contributions, the more time candidates have to spend finding more small contributors.

The critic objects that the advocate’s argument is flawed because

(A) any resourceful large contributor can circumvent caps on individual contributions by sending in smaller amounts under various names - WRONG. May be true in real life but not ncessary in the passage. 

(B) one of the projected results cited in support of the proposal made is entailed by the other and therefore does not constitute independent support of the proposal - WRONG. It is not about one being independent of other but both two factors leading to one outcome. 

(C) of the two projected results cited in support of the proposal made, one works against the other - CORRECT. The causation is pointed in the Critic's argument. 

(D) it overlooks the possibility that large contributors will stop contributing if they cannot contribute at will - WRONG. Will is out of scope.

(E) it overlooks the possibility that incumbents with a few extremely generous contributors will be hit harder by caps than incumbents with many moderately generous contributors - WRONG. Irrelevant. 

Answer C.