Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
sritamasia
16 Nov 2021, 10:23
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
79% (01:37) correct
21%
(02:22)
wrong
based on 166
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Political scientist: One of the most interesting dilemmas in contemporary democratic politics concerns the regulation of political campaign spending. People certainly should be free, within broad limits, to spend their money as they choose. On the other hand, candidates who can vastly outspend all rivals have an unfair advantage in publicizing their platforms. Democratic governments have a strong obligation to ensure that all voices have an equal chance to be heard, but governments should not subsidize expensive campaigns for each candidate. The resolution of the dilemma, therefore, is clear: _______.
Which one of the following most logically completes the political scientist’s argument?
A. only candidates with significant campaign resources should be permitted to run for public office
B. an upper limit on the political campaign spending of each candidate is warranted
C. government subsidization of all political campaigns at a low percentage of their total cost is warranted
D. all wealthy persons should be prohibited from spending their own money on political campaigns
E. each candidate should be allowed to spend as much money on a political campaign as any other candidate chooses to spend
Which one of the following most logically completes the political scientist’s argument?
A. only candidates with significant campaign resources should be permitted to run for public office
B. an upper limit on the political campaign spending of each candidate is warranted
C. government subsidization of all political campaigns at a low percentage of their total cost is warranted
D. all wealthy persons should be prohibited from spending their own money on political campaigns
E. each candidate should be allowed to spend as much money on a political campaign as any other candidate chooses to spend
18 Nov 2021, 22:09
Kudos
Bookmarks
Author emphasizes two things (nearly opposite):
1. Allow candidates to spend money as much they choose to spend. (allow)
2. Not to allow that candidate to be able to vastly outspend all rivals (restrict)
We need a choice that will satisfy both the things above, to complete the argument.
B is the best answer correct, as it compromises between the two stances. It allows the candidate to spend as much they wish but within a limit(so that that candidate is not able to vastly outspend than other candidates).
1. Allow candidates to spend money as much they choose to spend. (allow)
2. Not to allow that candidate to be able to vastly outspend all rivals (restrict)
We need a choice that will satisfy both the things above, to complete the argument.
B is the best answer correct, as it compromises between the two stances. It allows the candidate to spend as much they wish but within a limit(so that that candidate is not able to vastly outspend than other candidates).
18 Nov 2021, 22:57
Kudos
Bookmarks
Not a fan of this question but B is the best among the choices.
We have to predict the thought process of the political scientist. The line gives away his train of thoughts -"Democratic governments have a strong obligation to ensure that all voices have an equal chance to be heard, but governments should not subsidize expensive campaigns for each candidate."
The political scientist is
1. YES to let everyone have equal say
2. NO is govt. subsidies
Lets go through each choice -
A. only candidates with significant campaign resources should be permitted to run for public office
Absolutely not what he meant. He wants to eliminate the unfairness stemming from unequal resources available to the candidates.
B. an upper limit on the political campaign spending of each candidate is warranted
This sounds fair, as well as govt. does not have to subsidise. Lets hold on to this one.
C. government subsidization of all political campaigns at a low percentage of their total cost is warranted
He does not want govt. subsidy. Also if their total cost is MASSIVE, then a small percentage of a MASSIVE amount would be significant.
D. all wealthy persons should be prohibited from spending their own money on political campaigns
That is violating his "fairness" ideal.
E. each candidate should be allowed to spend as much money on a political campaign as any other candidate chooses to spend
Aah this is tricky. He says that candidates should be allowed to spend as any other candidate chooses to. Okay, so if we have very fair people in the group this can work. But if there is a candidate with vast personal resources (cough... Donald Trump.. cough.. pardon me its flu season!) and he 'chose' to go all in then how will that be fair to the other candidates?
It is similar to F1, as the rich constructors like the Mercedes or Ferraris would choose to spend more. Hence there is a mandated cap on the the total spend nowadays - which ties well with option B.
B is best out of the rest.
We have to predict the thought process of the political scientist. The line gives away his train of thoughts -"Democratic governments have a strong obligation to ensure that all voices have an equal chance to be heard, but governments should not subsidize expensive campaigns for each candidate."
The political scientist is
1. YES to let everyone have equal say
2. NO is govt. subsidies
Lets go through each choice -
A. only candidates with significant campaign resources should be permitted to run for public office
Absolutely not what he meant. He wants to eliminate the unfairness stemming from unequal resources available to the candidates.
B. an upper limit on the political campaign spending of each candidate is warranted
This sounds fair, as well as govt. does not have to subsidise. Lets hold on to this one.
C. government subsidization of all political campaigns at a low percentage of their total cost is warranted
He does not want govt. subsidy. Also if their total cost is MASSIVE, then a small percentage of a MASSIVE amount would be significant.
D. all wealthy persons should be prohibited from spending their own money on political campaigns
That is violating his "fairness" ideal.
E. each candidate should be allowed to spend as much money on a political campaign as any other candidate chooses to spend
Aah this is tricky. He says that candidates should be allowed to spend as any other candidate chooses to. Okay, so if we have very fair people in the group this can work. But if there is a candidate with vast personal resources (cough... Donald Trump.. cough.. pardon me its flu season!) and he 'chose' to go all in then how will that be fair to the other candidates?
It is similar to F1, as the rich constructors like the Mercedes or Ferraris would choose to spend more. Hence there is a mandated cap on the the total spend nowadays - which ties well with option B.
B is best out of the rest.
