BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Political scientist dilemma

Expert replies
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
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

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

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

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

.
Join the discussion

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
Join the discussion

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??

.
Join the discussion

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..........
Join the discussion

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

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.
Join the discussion

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