Last visit was: 23 Apr 2026, 20:09 It is currently 23 Apr 2026, 20:09
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
655-705 (Hard)|   Assumption|         
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 23 Apr 2026
Posts: 109,785
Own Kudos:
810,875
 [14]
Given Kudos: 105,853
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 109,785
Kudos: 810,875
 [14]
Political advocate: Campaigns for elective office should be subsidized 06 Apr 2020, 02:15
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
11
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

71% (02:52) correct 29% (03:00) wrong based on 666 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet

Competition Mode Question



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.

Which one of the following principle, if established, provides a basis for the advocate’s argument?


(A) If complete reliance on private funding of some activity keeps the public from enjoying a benefit that could be provided if public funds were used, such public funds should be provided.

(B) If election campaigns are to be fended from public funds, terms of office for elected officials should be lengthened.

(C) If in an election campaign large contributions flow primarily to one candidate, public funds should be used to support the campaigns of that candidate’s rivals.

(D) If public funding of some activity produces a benefit to the public but also inevitably a special benefit for specific individuals, the activity should not be fully funded publicly but in part by the individuals deriving the special benefit.

(E) If a person would not have run for office in the absence of public campaign subsidies, this person should not be eligible for any such subsidies.
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
A
User avatar
exc4libur
User avatar
Joined: 24 Nov 2016
Last visit: 22 Mar 2022
Posts: 1,680
Own Kudos:
1,469
 [1]
Given Kudos: 607
Location: United States
Posts: 1,680
Kudos: 1,469
 [1]
Political advocate: Campaigns for elective office should be subsidized 06 Apr 2020, 08:26
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
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.

Which one of the following principle, if established, provides a basis for the advocate’s argument?


(A) If complete reliance on private funding of some activity keeps the public from enjoying a benefit that could be provided if public funds were used, such public funds should be provided.

(B) If election campaigns are to be fended from public funds, terms of office for elected officials should be lengthened.

(C) If in an election campaign large contributions flow primarily to one candidate, public funds should be used to support the campaigns of that candidate’s rivals.

(D) If public funding of some activity produces a benefit to the public but also inevitably a special benefit for specific individuals, the activity should not be fully funded publicly but in part by the individuals deriving the special benefit.

(E) If a person would not have run for office in the absence of public campaign subsidies, this person should not be eligible for any such subsidies.
Show more

ARGUMENT
p= campaigns should be subs by public funds because
p= cands will spend less time fund-raising and more addressing public
p= also, subs will enable caps on contributions, thus, reducing likelihood
p= that cands are working for the public not large contributors
c= if there are caps, cands will have to spend more time fund-raising!

Ans (A) if private funds keeps public from a benefit that could be provided from public funds, then such should happen!
User avatar
debjit1990
User avatar
Joined: 26 Dec 2017
Last visit: 29 Dec 2025
Posts: 256
Own Kudos:
285
 [1]
Given Kudos: 22
Location: India
GMAT 1: 580 Q42 V27
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 580 Q42 V27
Posts: 256
Kudos: 285
 [1]
Political advocate: Campaigns for elective office should be subsidized 06 Apr 2020, 11:45
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Ans: a

(A) If complete reliance on private funding of some activity keeps the public from enjoying a benefit that could be provided if public funds were used, such public funds should be provided.
User avatar
vasu1104
User avatar
Joined: 10 Feb 2023
Last visit: 23 Apr 2026
Posts: 391
Own Kudos:
236
Given Kudos: 664
Location: Canada
Products:
Forum Quiz
Posts: 391
Kudos: 236
Political advocate: Campaigns for elective office should be subsidized 05 Jan 2026, 10:02
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
conclusion- campaigns should be subsidized with public funds.
reason- it would allow them to spend more time with customers.
also it would set cap on individual contributors.
if we do it then it would reduce the likelihood that they would work for individual contributors

A. this says that if you can get benefit of some activity if public fund is provided then public fund should be provided. this is the missing link that bridge the gap on why public fund would reduce the likelihood that officials would work for individual.
B. length of term is not appropriate.
C its not about diverging the funding to candidates from all aspects.
D this is going in other direction. it says that if public funding helps private individual then individual should share part of funding. we are not at all concerned with this but rather why public funding should be used completely.
E this talks about the eligibility for selecting candidate for public funding. we are not concerned with this

Bunuel

Competition Mode Question



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.

Which one of the following principle, if established, provides a basis for the advocate’s argument?


(A) If complete reliance on private funding of some activity keeps the public from enjoying a benefit that could be provided if public funds were used, such public funds should be provided.

(B) If election campaigns are to be fended from public funds, terms of office for elected officials should be lengthened.

(C) If in an election campaign large contributions flow primarily to one candidate, public funds should be used to support the campaigns of that candidate’s rivals.

(D) If public funding of some activity produces a benefit to the public but also inevitably a special benefit for specific individuals, the activity should not be fully funded publicly but in part by the individuals deriving the special benefit.

(E) If a person would not have run for office in the absence of public campaign subsidies, this person should not be eligible for any such subsidies.
Show more
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts
AbhishekP220108
501 posts
bhanu29
358 posts