Studies of voting patterns in the town of Glen Isle have shown that

Question

Studies of voting patterns in the town of Glen Isle have shown that the single most effective way for politicians to win votes is to purchase expensive television advertising. A candidate challenging the incumbent for a seat on the town council has argued that the importance of television advertising inherently favors incumbents and therefore that political television advertising should be banned in Glen Isle.

The challenger's conclusion logically depends on which of the following assumptions?

(A) Incumbents have won eighty percent of the elections in Glen Isle in the last 10 years.

(B) Some incumbent candidates in Glen Isle have been able to win votes by organizing frequent political rallies.

(C) Not all challengers in Glen Isle are skilled political fundraisers.

(D) Glen Isle incumbents have access to financial support in excess of that available to challengers.

(E) Banning political television advertising is not unconstitutional.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler

dhart · Answer

(A) Incumbents have won eighty percent of the elections in Glen Isle in the last 10 years.
Can be due to many forms of campaigning like print media, social media and may be tv media , can't ask only tv media to stop

(B) Some incumbent candidates in Glen Isle have been able to win votes by organizing frequent political rallies.
political rallies by the incumebents were aired on tv or not

(C) Not all challengers in Glen Isle are skilled political fundraisers.
challengers fundraising ability does'nt mean all the expenses will be only on tv media ads.

(D) Glen Isle incumbents have access to financial support in excess of that available to challengers.
Incumbent having excess financial support doesn't necessarily mean that higher tv air time & higher tv air-time means high favourable votes.
(E) Banning political television advertising is not unconstitutional.
Candidate asking for banning the political advertising on tv , then may be the banning of political adverts on tv is allowed in the constitution, , looks acceptable!

Vivek1707 · Answer

A. 80% of incumbent wins doesn't tell us why they won. They could have won for many reasons unrelated to TV advertising.
B. Rallies have nothing to do with the argument about expensive TV advertising.
C. The issue isn't whether challengers are good at fundraising. The key is whether incumbents have an advantage in accessing the expensive advertising.
D. This connects the dots. TV advertising is expensive, and if incumbents have more financial support than challengers, they have an advantage in buying it. That's what makes TV advertising inherently favor incumbents. If other politicians could buy off the TV ads then this wouldn't favour the incumbents. Correct
E. Whether the ban is constitutional isn't required for the argument. The challenger can still believe that it should be banned even if a constitutional change would be needed.

counterclash1 · Answer

Correct Answer : D

Argument Breakdown
 
 Premise 1: Purchasing expensive television advertising is the single most effective way to win votes in Glen Isle. 
 Premise 2: The importance of TV advertising inherently favors incumbents. 
 Conclusion: Political TV advertising should be banned in Glen Isle.

Testing Option (D) via the Negation Technique: 
 
  Negated Statement:   Glen Isle incumbents do NOT have access to financial support in excess of that available to challengers (i.e., challengers have equal or greater financial access).  
  Impact on Argument:  If challengers have equal or superior funds to buy expensive TV ads, then the cost of TV advertising no longer inherently favors incumbents. The premise supporting the ban breaks down completely. Because negating statement (D) destroys the argument, (D) is a necessary assumption.  
Analysis of Incorrect Options
 
 (A) Incumbents have won eighty percent of the elections in Glen Isle in the last 10 years.
 Incorrect.  Historical win percentages do not explain  why  TV ads favor incumbents today. Even if incumbents won only 20% of past elections, expensive TV ads could still favor them in current elections. 
 (B) Some incumbent candidates in Glen Isle have been able to win votes by organizing frequent political rallies.
 Incorrect.  Alternative campaign methods (like rallies) do not impact the logic regarding whether expensive TV ads inherently favor incumbents. 
 (C) Not all challengers in Glen Isle are skilled political fundraisers.
 Incorrect.  A challenger's fundraising skill does not guarantee total funds raised; an unskilled fundraiser could still be self-funded or backed by wealthy donors. 
 (E) Banning political television advertising is not unconstitutional.
 Incorrect.  Legal feasibility is outside the scope of the logical premise that TV ads create an unfair incumbent advantage.

dhart · Answer

Yes , negation techniues works , if incumbents will have a better financial support , than they will not ask for ban and the argument is destroyed completely. So the argument is based on the assumption that incumbents have support to financial in much excess of challengers.

UpHa · Answer

IMO, D. It compares the financial strength of the incumbents to the challengers with incumbents having an edge. And television advertising is expensive as per the passage.

Bunuel · Answer

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

This is an Assumption question that asks for an assumption the challenger is making. The challenger concludes that political advertising on television should be banned because incumbents have an inherent advantage when it comes to purchasing such advertising, which has been shown to be the best way to attract voters.

If the challenger believes "advertising inherently favors incumbents" and the way to access advertising is by making an "expensive" purchase, the challenger must believe incumbents have some advantage in ability to pay for advertising.

(D) matches the prediction and is correct. If incumbents have more financial support than challengers, they would indeed have an advantage in purchasing advertising.

(A) and (B) are irrelevant. The incumbents in (A) may have won because they were better campaigners, or because voter preferred their positions. The incumbents in (B) may have won because voters liked their rallies, but in either choice, there is no information connecting those victories to television advertising.

(C) is irrelevant. The ability of some challengers to raise money is not the issue. The argument is concerned with the unfairness of the system, not the ability (or lack of it) of some challengers to function within that system.

(E) is not something that the challenger must believe for the conclusion to follow from the evidence. Even if the challenger believes that banning this advertising is unconstitutional, she may still think it should be done. Perhaps she doesn't think a ban would be challenged in court. Perhaps she believes the constitution should be amended!

TAKEAWAY:  Be very clear on the evidence and conclusion of the argument, and stick to the connection between them. Irrelevant choices are quite common, and can be easily spotted by having a good paraphrase of the argument.

Studies of voting patterns in the town of Glen Isle have shown that

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

­Studies of voting patterns in the town of Glen Isle have shown that

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

Studies of voting patterns in the town of Glen Isle have shown that