bblast wrote:19. Editor: Many candidates say that if elected they will
reduce governmental intrusion into voters' lives.
But voters actually elect politicians who instead
promise that the government will provide
assistance to solve their most pressing problems.
Governmental assistance, however, costs money,
and money can come only from taxes, which can
be considered a form of governmental intrusion.
Thus, governmental intrusion into the lives of
voters will rarely be substantially reduced over
time in a democracy.

Which one of the following, if true, would most
strengthen the editor's argument?
(A) Politicians who win their elections usually keep
their campaign promises.

Correct. If they keep their promises (that the govt will provide assistance), it would cost money --> taxes --> intrusion. Thus strengthens the argument.
(B) Politicians never promise what they really
intend to do once in office.

Incorrect. They do something other than their promise (of providing assistance), which may or may not cost money. This would not necessarily lead to intrusion.
(C) The most common problems people have are
financial problems.

Incorrect. This choice is tricky, I think. Most common does not mean most pressing. The elected politician would focus on the most pressing problem which may or may not need assistance.
(D) Governmental intrusion into the lives of voters
is no more burdensome in nondemocratic
countries than it is in democracies.

Incorrect. Irrelevant.
(E) Politicians who promise to do what they
actually believe ought to be done are rarely
elected.

Incorrect. This choice weakens the argument. Voters prefer candidate who promises assistance. Such a candidate would provide assistance if elected. However, since such politicians are rarely elected, the ones that are elected would not want to provide financial assistance (but work on other matters) and hence would not lead to intrusion.
OA A