lsat-22-3-7

entia

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.

答案是c 不对吧，the two projected results cited in support of the proposal made one works against the other

黑体字分别执代原文哪里呢？？？？

hedonism555

more caps on contributions= more contributions.  then is contrary to the more time needed to solicit funds

entia

谢谢 ic

Bensontuo

entia 发表于 2004-12-18 16:18
Questions 7-8 Political advocate: Campaigns for elective office should be subsidized with public fun ...

Spot the question type: Method of the reasoning - flaw


Critic - More the caps constrain contributions ---> more the candidate have to spend finding small contributions

PA: - ( devote less time to fund raising ---> incumbent more time to serve the public ) + ( subsidies makes caps on individual campaign contribution ---> reducing the likelyhood that elected officials will be working for the benefit not of the public but of individual large contribution ) ---> campaign should be subsidized with public funds.

What a timely question, as our two presidential candidates shatter records for the most expensive presidential campaign ever.  

The political advocate thinks that campaigns should be partially funded by public funds (i.e. the govt. should help pay for campaign costs).

Why?

1. If the govt. helps pay for the campaigns, then the candidates will presumably have to spend less time trying to round up campaign donations. (The advocate thinks this is particularly preferable for the sake of incumbent candidates, who should be doing the job they were elected to do rather than trying to get money for re-election).

2. If the govt. helps pay for the campaigns, then the govt. would be allowed to have some say in how campaign contributions are given. The advocate thinks the govt. should set a cap on the max amount that can be donated. He reasons that when individuals are allowed to donate huge sums of money, then candidates feel beholden to do their large donors favors once in office. If no contribution is allowed to be super huge, then no candidate will feel especially in debt to any donor.

The critic's response says, the more #2 limits the size of donations, the more time candidates will have to spend trying to get donations (and the goal of #1 was to reduce the amount of time candidates need to spend fundraising).

Basically, envision a little scenario:

Last campaign (unsubsidized):
Candidate X needed to raise $10 million dollars. Richguy McGee donated $2 million, and Fancypants Williams donated $1 million. The other $7 million was raised through very time consuming fundraising events, stump speeches, etc.

Now our political advocate wants to change things so that the govt. would give Candidate X $3 million to help finance her campaign.

If that had happened in the last campaign, then Candidate X would have only needed to raise $4 million the time-consuming way (and so presumably would have spent much less time fundraising)

But if the govt. ALSO put an upper limit on the amount that any individual can donate ... we'll say, $100,000 max ... then Richguy and Fancypants can only contribute $100,000 each.

That means, that along with the public funds, Candidate X still has $6.8 million to raise the long way.