Total contributions by individuals to political parties were

Even if some people are interested in politics, they might not particiapte in voting and so at that time, how can you justify E?
I thought that it was specified about the monetary donations in the first sentence and anything related to that concept could be correct.
any other ideas??

Ok let's do it by POE.

(A) The average contribution per individual actually declined during the same four year period.
This only means more people have contributed, which strengthens the conclusion that people are more interested.

(B) Per capita income of the population increased by 15 percent during the four years in question.
This would be the best answer, in my opinion, if the number is 25 or more. Since it would indicate that the increase in political contribution is only comparable to the increase in people's income. However since 15<25, it still follows people must be more interested than before.

(C) Public leaders continue to warn citizens against the dangers of political apathy.
That says nothing about if people are more interested.

(D) Contributions made by large corporations to political parties declined during the four-year period.
This again strengthens the conclusion. If corporation contribution declined while total contribution increases, that must mean more contribution from people, thus more people interested in politics.

(E) Fewer people voted in the most recent presidential election than in the one four years earlier.
Voting is another important indicator of people's interests in politics. This fact presents an counter argument to the author's argument and thus weaken the conclusion.

A.

Average contribution declined means only few wealthy fat cats are rolling in dough for their special interest while majority didn't care to dig into their pockets.

What's the OA?

I will go with (E). as for (A) Total contributions increased by 25% but avg contribution per person has decreased according to (A), which implies that number of people who contributed has increased ...which will actually strengthen the argument above. The choice (E) though itself weak definitly weaken the argument.

OA is (E)
What about (A)? (A) means people actually put in less money, but the total is higher b/c of the incease in population??
(C) is flawed when we talk about the change in population also b/c fewer people voted is due to a decrease in population. What if the percentage of voters is still high?

But A doesn't mention anything about population or are we suppose to assume population increased?

It seems a little hard to me.
In the passage, the increase in total contributions made by individuals
and the decrease in the average contribution mean the number of population must increase. And increase in the population just weaken the argument; that is, the reason is not because of greater interest in politics but because of increase in population. doesn't weaken?

To me, E is out of scope. The vote rate doesn't necessarily mean people's attitude toward politics, it probably is weather factor which influences the vote rate.

Could anybody give me some help?

I agree with you on this one.
The premise makes a connection between "contribution" (or $$) and "interest in politics". Now, for a GMAT common sense, in order to weaken the argument, we must break this connection.
(E) says "fewer people voted", which I don't think that it has anything to do with $$. I mean "What if the population decreases?"

We need not break the connection. But, if we can negate the assumption then also we can weaken the argument, this is what I believe is happening in (E).

By an increase in total of 25% the author indicates awareness in more people which also means that he assumes that it is because of more people contributing (and not because more contri per person).

Statement (E) just states that no of people Dec. i.e. it negates the assumption .... do I make any sense to anybody ???

Hello,

Who could tell me why A is wrong?

thanks, I've understand why choice A is wrong.

The increase in the number of population who made contribution means people are more and more interested in politics.

So, strengthen the argument.