MartyTargetTestPrep
Congressman: The amount of money donated each year to the campaigns of candidates for elected office has been increasing for decades, and in the vast majority of elections held in recent years, the candidate who has received the most donated money has won. Only after changing campaign finance laws so that they better combat the money driven nature of today’s electoral process will we have a situation such that elections generally result in the most qualified candidates winning.
Which of the following must be assumed in coming to the above conclusion?
A. Voters would be better off if only the government were allowed to provide financing to campaigns of candidates for elected office.
B. It is not usually the case that, of the candidates running in an election, the candidate most qualified for the office sought receives the most in financial donations.
C. In the past, it was not the case that in the vast majority of elections the candidate who had received the most donated money won.
D. Campaign finance laws in effect currently are less effective in combating campaign finance related distortions of the electoral process than were laws in effect in the past.
E. There is no way for the average voter to determine which of the candidates in an election is the most qualified for the office the candidates are seeking.
Source: TTP Beta Testing
MartyTargetTestPrep After discarding options A C and D . I was down to B and E. I chose B , as that was the link that clicked in my mind as soon as i read the argument.
BUT, i think i can make an argument for E too.
Past pattern : the candidate who has received the most donated money has won.
conclusion :
Only after changing campaign finance laws so that they better combat the money driven nature of today’s electoral process
will we have a situation such that elections generally result in the most qualified candidates winning.
The conclusion can also be restated as : there is NO OTHER WAY than changing finance laws to get that situation.
In this interpretation we are assuming that there is no other way along with the assumption of CNDITION NO EXISTING ie, even if we dont cahnge finance laws (that asumption is B)
Option E.: There is no way for the average voter to determine which of the candidates in an election is the most qualified for the office the candidates are seeking.
NOW if we negate this by saying : there is a way for the avg voter bla bla bla, Then the condition "only after" does not stand
UNLESS the way that we are speaking in E about is the finance way.. That is the avg candidate judges the candidate by the means of amount spent by the candidate !!! If this the case then E is not an assumption. If this is not the case then E is the assumtion
Additionally, Option E alks about "knowing" who is the best candidate but are we sure that the voters vote the same guy?? or are they drawn to money?/
NOW assumptions have to be true for the conclusion to be sound. In this test E doesnt fit in and B wins...
I wsh to know if my reasoning is right, if not please correct me and while doing s please be elaborative !! Thankyou
generis your views on this one