PrepTest 105, Section 1, Question 24
Editorial: Our society has a vested interest in(67 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(16 more words not shown)
- ACandidates should not(15 more words not shown)
- BCandidates wealthy enough(17 more words not shown)
- CVoters should not(15 more words not shown)
- DThe government should(14 more words not shown)
- EPrivate funding for(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I understand the concern. A candidate needs money to campaign, and a private donor might expect something in return. If getting that money means changing the candidate's principles, the funding arrangement can undermine the political system the editorial wants to preserve.
Could some donors give without attaching strings? Perhaps, and the author does say “almost invariably,” leaving room for exceptions. But let's accept the stated problem and examine the proposed solution: the government should pay for the campaigns.
Why is that the government's responsibility?
There might be another way to address the problem, or public funding might create problems of its own. The argument identifies an interest society has, then moves to a recommendation that the government finance it. That step needs support.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for a principle that helps justify the conclusion. My prediction is a rule assigning the government a role in addressing this kind of social problem. More specifically, we want a reason to fund campaigns when doing so helps preserve the political system the argument values.
Working the answers
- A
This tells candidates not to run if running would force them to compromise. That is a different response to the problem. It could leave only candidates able to avoid that compromise in the race, without the government paying for anyone's campaign. A doesn't support the particular funding recommendation.
- B
Restricting wealthy candidates' additional fundraising doesn't establish that the government should finance campaigns. The editorial is especially concerned with candidates who cannot fund themselves. B imposes a rule on another group without explaining why public funding should supply what the others need.
- C
This recommends a voter response: withhold support from candidates known to have accepted private funding. It doesn't connect the stated social interest to a government duty to finance campaigns. The conclusion is about who should pay, not which candidates voters should reject.
- DCorrect
This supplies the missing connection between society's interest and government funding. The editorial identifies a vested interest: a political system in which candidates can adhere to their principles. It presents public campaign funding as a way to remove the private-funding pressure that compromises those principles. D says that furthering a vested interest of society is a reason the government should finance an activity.
That principle supports the proposed action. We still might ask practical questions about how the funding would work, but a strengthening principle doesn't have to answer every implementation objection. D directly addresses the step the other choices leave unsupported.
- E
This limits when private funding should be encouraged, based on whether it corrects a financial imbalance among candidates. The editorial's concern is the pressure to compromise principles, and its solution is government funding. E doesn't establish why the government should take on that cost, even if some private contributions should not be encouraged.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.