PrepTest 125, Section 4, Question 1
Editorialist: Advertisers devote millions of dollars to the(55 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(7 more words not shown)
- APublic opinion can(15 more words not shown)
- BAdvertisers' techniques are(11 more words not shown)
- CMany democratic countries(16 more words not shown)
- DPeople who neither(22 more words not shown)
- EUnlike advertisements for(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Trying to change my mind isn't the same as changing it.
I can see what advertisers are attempting. A commercial might suggest that a car will make me popular or that buying a snack will make me part of the fun. Political campaigns use similar techniques to promote candidates. But spending money on those efforts doesn't itself establish that they work.
The conclusion says election results don't represent people's 'unadulterated' preferences. Here, think of unadulterated as unmodified by the influence being discussed. To support that conclusion, we need to connect the campaign techniques with a change in what people prefer.
Maybe the advertisements do influence voters. If so, the election reflects preferences after that influence. But the argument needs more than the fact that people are paid to try.
What we’re looking for
That's what I'd want from a strengthener: evidence linking the advertising with an actual effect on voters' preferences.
Working the answers
- A
Which kind of government can manipulate opinion more easily? That comparison doesn't tell us whether the political advertising described here changes voters' preferences. The conclusion concerns how to understand elections in democratic countries, not whether manipulation is easier elsewhere.
- B
Recognizing an advertising technique doesn't tell us whether it changes our views. Someone might see the technique and resist it, or recognize it and still be influenced. B doesn't establish the effect needed to connect the advertising with the conclusion.
- C
A spending limit could be high or low, and even a small amount of advertising could potentially influence people. Knowing that a limit exists doesn't tell us whether the ads change preferences. The relevant question is their effect, not simply whether spending is regulated.
- D
Being more likely to vote doesn't mean this group supplies most voters. There could be relatively few people who avoid both television and print. More importantly, this gives us no evidence that advertisements change the preferences expressed in elections. If anything, greater participation by people with less exposure to these media could make the proposed advertising influence less concerning.
- ECorrect
Political advertisements often change voters' beliefs. That supplies an actual effect, rather than just an effort to produce one. Unlike merely reinforcing what voters already believe, changing their beliefs gives us a reason to think their expressed preferences have been modified by the campaigns. E makes the connection the argument needs without requiring the word 'unadulterated' to appear in the answer.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.