PrepTest 117, Section 4, Question 23
Political scientist: One of the most interesting dilemmas(82 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- Aonly candidates with(11 more words not shown)
- Ban upper limit(10 more words not shown)
- Cgovernment subsidization of(13 more words not shown)
- Dall wealthy persons(11 more words not shown)
- Eeach candidate should(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Couldn't we cap how much each candidate spends? The political scientist wants everyone to have a fair chance to be heard, but doesn't want the government paying for expensive campaigns for all candidates. Giving everyone enough money to match the richest campaign is therefore off the table. Limiting how much the biggest campaign can spend looks like another way to address the imbalance.
What about the freedom to spend your own money? The passage protects that freedom within broad limits. It doesn't say spending can never be restricted. We need a conclusion that fits both that qualified freedom and the concern about one candidate drowning out the others.
What we’re looking for
The blank asks us to complete the argument. My prediction is an upper limit on campaign spending. We don't need to invent a complete campaign-finance system; we need the proposal these stated concerns support.
Working the answers
- A
Restricting candidacy to people with substantial resources doesn't give less wealthy voices a fairer chance to be heard. It excludes them. The political scientist is looking for a response to unequal campaign spending, not a reason to reserve public office for well-funded candidates.
- BCorrect
A spending ceiling limits how far a well-funded candidate can outspend rivals without requiring the government to finance an expensive campaign for everyone. It also leaves candidates some freedom to spend within that limit. This is the direction the argument supports.
An upper limit doesn't automatically make every campaign equally effective. The question isn't asking us to prove that one rule solves every problem in democratic politics. B is the proposed response that best fits the concerns and restrictions the speaker has given us.
- C
Paying a small percentage of each campaign's costs doesn't remove the disparity. A campaign that can already spend much more could receive its subsidy and still vastly outspend a poorer rival. A percentage subsidy might even give the larger campaign more money. This doesn't address the problem the way a spending limit does.
- D
A total ban on wealthy people's use of their own money goes beyond the proposed balance. The passage allows people freedom to spend within broad limits; it doesn't support excluding wealthy people from campaign spending altogether. The concern about vastly outspending rivals supports restricting how much can be spent, not this categorical ban based on wealth.
- E
Permission isn't purchasing power. Telling every candidate they're allowed to spend what a wealthy rival spends doesn't give them the resources to do it. Everyone could be allowed to buy a $10 million house, too; that wouldn't make everyone able to buy one. E leaves the actual financial disadvantage in place.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.