PrepTest 123, Section 3, Question 19
Editor: Many candidates say that if elected they(66 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(8 more words not shown)
- APoliticians who win(7 more words not shown)
- BPoliticians never promise(9 more words not shown)
- CThe most common(6 more words not shown)
- DGovernmental intrusion into(16 more words not shown)
- EPoliticians who promise(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Will the politicians actually do what they promise? That's the uncertainty I want to keep in view. Candidates offer voters help with their most pressing problems, and voters elect them. The editor then explains why that help comes with government involvement: assistance costs money, the money comes from taxes, and taxes are themselves a form of intrusion into people's lives.
If the promised help arrives, I can see the editor's point. Voters would be choosing a government role that comes with a tax bill, even though some candidates offer less government intrusion. That gives us a reason to doubt that intrusion will often fall substantially over time.
What we’re looking for
But winning an election on a promise isn't the same as delivering it. What if the winners stop talking about the promised assistance once they're in office? To strengthen the argument, I'd want reassurance that elected politicians generally follow through. Then the voters' choices would be more useful evidence of what the government will actually do.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The politicians who win usually keep their promises. In this argument, those winners have promised government assistance. If they generally deliver it, the assistance will need funding, and the passage tells us that funding comes through taxes.
That connects the campaign promises to actual government involvement. It doesn't prove intrusion can never fall, but the conclusion is already qualified: substantial reductions will rarely occur. A makes that prediction more convincing.
- B
This makes campaign promises less useful as evidence of what elected politicians will do. If politicians never promise what they actually intend, we have more reason to question whether promises of assistance will turn into assistance and the taxes it requires. B undermines the connection we wanted to strengthen.
- C
I don't need voters' problems to be financial for solving them to cost the government money. A health problem, for example, could require services that need funding too. The argument already says government assistance costs money. Identifying the most common kind of problem doesn't address whether the promised assistance will actually be provided.
- D
We aren't comparing democracies with nondemocratic countries. We are asking what is likely to happen over time within a democracy. Another country's level of intrusion doesn't establish whether elected politicians will reduce it here.
- E
What politicians sincerely believe should be done is different from what they will do after taking office. A politician might promise a policy they don't personally favor and still deliver it. Or they might believe in a policy and fail to deliver it. E tells us about the election prospects of sincere promises, but it doesn't establish whether the winners fulfill their promises of government assistance.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.