Expensive television advertising campaigns clearly help political cand

Question

Expensive television advertising campaigns clearly help political candidates win elections, as evidenced by the fact that, in most political elections, the candidate with the most campaign money ultimately wins.

Which of the following, if true, would provide most support for the argument above?

(A) Endorsements from minor political office-holders generally have no effect on a candidate’s chances of winning an election.

(B) In most cases, candidates who currently hold the office for which they seek re-election have more available campaign money than their competitors.

(C) Expensive television advertising campaigns are waged most frequently by candidates who have more available campaign money than their competitors.

(D) When it comes to choosing among candidates, the voting public tends to disregard how a candidate is portrayed in television advertisements.

(E) Nearly any political candidate can afford to wage some type of television advertising campaign.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:

Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler  
  Data Insights Butler

APram · Answer

Premise : the candidate with the most campaign money ultimately wins.
Conclusion :Expensive television advertising campaigns clearly help political candidates win elections

Somehow candidates with more campaign money are able to go for the expensive television advertising campaigns

(A) Endorsements from minor political office-holders generally have no effect on a candidate’s chances of winning an election.  This is supporting the different conclusion about winning of election.

(B) In most cases, candidates who currently hold the office for which they seek re-election have more available campaign money than their competitors.  Even if candidates who holds the office have more campaign money than competitors the premise is true. This option doesn't say that competitors win or lose.

(C) Expensive television advertising campaigns are waged most frequently by candidates who have more available campaign money than their competitors.  Yes, this shows that candidates with most campaign money somehow go for expensive advertising campaigns and that helps them to win.

(D) When it comes to choosing among candidates, the voting public tends to disregard how a candidate is portrayed in television advertisements.  This is pseudo-weakener as it attacks the conclusion by saying that public disregard a candidate and makes views about his portrayal in advertisements

(E) Nearly any political candidate can afford to wage some type of television advertising campaign.  This is out of scope.

RAAVAN2003 · Answer

Isn't C rehashed from the stem ? So how can that be the answer?

PrernaSonii · Answer

As its an assumption question there should be no new information and is connecting the dots of the stem

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The correct answer is (C).

Of the five choices, choice (C) is the best because it substantiates an assumption needed for the argument’s conclusion to be reasonable. Unless the winning candidate actually wages an expensive television ad campaign, it makes no sense to conclude that this type of campaign contributed to the candidate’s victory.

Expensive television advertising campaigns clearly help political cand

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

Expensive television advertising campaigns clearly help political cand

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