Political scientist dilemma

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 238
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:44 am
Thanked: 9 times

Political scientist dilemma

by avenus » Wed May 27, 2009 9:50 am
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 bepermitted 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
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:16 am
Location: San Francisco
Thanked: 14 times

by mbadrew » Wed May 27, 2009 10:30 am
IMO B

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 3:55 pm
Thanked: 11 times
GMAT Score:740

by Domnu » Wed May 27, 2009 11:27 am
IMO B.
Have you wondered how you could have found such a treasure? -T

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 238
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:44 am
Thanked: 9 times

by avenus » Wed May 27, 2009 2:38 pm
Domnu wrote:IMO B.
please elaborate

.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 3:55 pm
Thanked: 11 times
GMAT Score:740

by Domnu » Wed May 27, 2009 3:10 pm
avenus wrote:
Domnu wrote:IMO B.
please elaborate

.
Sorry about that :wink:

(A) only candidates with significant campaign resources should bepermitted to run for public office

This would violate the argument (people should be free, as they choose to spend money, etc.)

(C) government subsidization of all political campaigns at a low percentage of their total cost is warranted

Low percentage? What does this mean? If it's the same percentage for everybody and somebody has a campaign that costs $10^30 or something, then it's still an expensive subsidization.

(D) all wealthy persons should be prohibited from spending their own money on political campaigns

Against the "people should be free, as they choose to spend money" idea again.

(E) each candidate should be allowed to spend as much money on a political campaign as any other candidate chooses to spend

Again, against the "people should be free as they choose to spend money" idea.

From process of elimination, we end up with B. This works, because of the "broad limits" mentioned.
Have you wondered how you could have found such a treasure? -T

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 238
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:44 am
Thanked: 9 times

by avenus » Wed May 27, 2009 3:42 pm
Domnu wrote: From process of elimination, we end up with B. This works, because of the "broad limits" mentioned.
I agree you could get to B by POE, but I was a bit puzzled because B it's not a "complete" answer either. It doesn't address the other issue ensure that all voices have an equal chance to be heard and since the stimulus states The resolution of the dilemma, therefore, is clear in rather strong terms, I was a bit pissed off and not completely satisfied...

What do you think??

.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 8:41 pm
Thanked: 3 times

Re: Political scientist dilemma

by ankit1383 » Wed May 27, 2009 6:38 pm
avenus wrote:Political scientist: One of the most interesting dilemmas in contemporary democratic politics concerns the regulation of political campaign spending.
dnt you think that choice B says just the same..........if we are cappping the maximum money that a campaigner can spend......it is just like regulating the spending..........

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 11:43 pm
Location: India

by shalinisingh » Wed May 27, 2009 8:53 pm
answer B

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 238
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:44 am
Thanked: 9 times

Re: Political scientist dilemma

by avenus » Thu May 28, 2009 12:15 am
ankit1383 wrote:
avenus wrote:Political scientist: One of the most interesting dilemmas in contemporary democratic politics concerns the regulation of political campaign spending.
dnt you think that choice B says just the same..........if we are cappping the maximum money that a campaigner can spend......it is just like regulating the spending..........
not really, there are many ways of regulating. A would be a way of regulating. same for D and E. That doesn't sound very convincing.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:03 am

by nicolette » Sun May 15, 2016 3:03 pm
I feel the answer will be B