Lsat 22-2-7

merlion

Questions 7-8

Political advocate: Campaigns for elective office should be subsidized with public funds. One reason is that this would allow politicians to devote less time to fund-raising thus giving campaigning incumbents more time to serve the public. A second reason is that such subsidies would make it possible to set caps on individual campaign contributions. thereby reducing the likelihood that elected officials will be working for the benefit not of the public but of individual large contributors. Critic: This argument is problematic the more the caps constrain contributions the more time candidates have to spend finding more small contributors.

7. The critic objects that the advocate's argument is flawed because

(A) any resourceful large contributor can circumvent caps on individual contributions by sending in smaller amounts under various names

(B) one of the projected results cited in support of the proposal made is entailed by the other and therefore does not constitute independent support of the proposal

(C) of the two projected results cited in support of the proposal made one works against the other

(D) it overlooks the possibility that large contributors will stop contributing if they cannot contribute at will

(E) it overlooks the possibility that incumbents with a few extremely generous contributors will be hit harder by caps than incumbents with many moderately generous contributors.

the answer is C. why critic "made one works against the other " is flawed? i mean i don't under what is the flaw. it sounds reasonable to me.

merlion

又读了一边， 是不是问advocate's argument 哪错了？也就是问critic指出advocate's argument 出错再哪。这样的话(c)就对了。