We favor the abolition of the equal access rule ...

The question implies that major party candidates are more likely to get covered while minors may not (re: "while even fringe and minor-party candidates would be probably receive some coverage as well"). Thus, the concern is whether minors would still get network coverage should the rule be abolished. Our goal is to find which question would give us the answer that would help us decide whether or not abolishing the rule would get minors network time one way or another.

(A) How much total network time should be devoted to news coverage of all candidates in election news?
- Incorrect. Getting the total amount of network time would be unhelpful because you cannot tell what the breakdown of the hours could be for major or minors.

(B) What if only one major party offers a candidate in a particular local election race?
- Incorrect. Whether there's 1 major and 50 minors, we still wouldn't be sure how much time would be given to which candidate (1 major could still take all the time).

(C) Are the networks willing to include position statements by the minor-party candidates themselves in their coverage of those candidates’ races?
- Incorrect. This jumps a step by assuming that minors would even get a chance to be on network television in the first place should the equal access rule be abolished.

(D) Who would guarantee that ample network time for paid political advertisements would be continue to be readily available?
- Incorrect. For one, this isn't specific enough, and doesn't ask about ensuring network time for minors (same "too general" problem as Answer A). Secondly, you wouldn't be able to know whether or not minors would get guaranteed network time based on who was in charge... either way, you would have to take someone's word for it if the rule was abolished.

(E) What if a minor-party candidate cannot afford to buy network time in which to show paid political advertisements?
- Correct. If networks stopped giving equal coverage of all candidates upon abolishing the rule (a real possibility since networks are no longer required to provide equal coverage), and the only other way to get on TV was to use paid advertisements, minors would not have any coverage at all if they couldn't afford it. Therefore, this is a significantly relevant question to ask.

only E makes perfect sense..
if minor-party candidate can't afford to buy air time, then he/she would not be covered, thus, the main point here that even without the rule, everyone gets the same attention is incorrect.

If minor party candidate cannot afford it, then equal access rule is violated.

E

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.