Political advocate: Campaigns for elective office should be subsidized

Question

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.

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

(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

exc4libur · Answer

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 (C) argument by critic is that cands won't spend less time fund-raising, because caps will demand them to find more small contributors - one works against the other.

debjit1990 · Answer

Ans: c

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

ArtVandaley · Answer

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

Posted from my mobile device

chaitralirr · Answer

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

unraveled · Answer

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.

SudhanshuC · Answer

Answer C

Reason-1  = Politicians devote less time to fund raising. So, they devote more time to the public.

Reason-2  = Caps on individual contributions.

As per the critic, caps on contributions make politicians spend more time on finding new small contributors, thereby reducing time devoted to the public - which goes against reason-1.

So, reason-2 works against reason-1, which is what option-C is stating.

Political advocate: Campaigns for elective office should be subsidized

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Political advocate: Campaigns for elective office should be subsidized

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards