Q23 - Political Scientist: One of the

[jennifer]

What makes B the correct answer choice and E the incorrect answer choice. Thank you

[ohthatpatrick]

These can be tough, since we're essentially asked to read the author's mind.

However, it pays to think of these as Inference questions, in the sense that the correct answer should feel as though it safely synthesizes the previous ideas.

The author creates some tension between two competing desires:
1. we want people to be free, within broad limits, to spend money as they choose
yet
2. we don't want one candidate to be able to vastly outspend all rivals

The author further rules out the potential solution of having the govt. subsidize expensive campaigns for everybody.

We know from the wording leading up to the blank that the author is trying to sell us on a way to reconcile these two competing desires.

(B) is correct, because setting an upper limit still gives people the freedom, within broad limits, to spend money as they choose (#1), while it seems to place a certain cap on spending so that one candidate wouldn't be able to vastly outspend all rivals (#2).

(E) is incorrect, because although it satisfies our 1st desire (freedom to spend within broad limits), it doesn't really satisfy our 2nd desire (preventing against one candidate vastly outspending all rivals).

It is true, that under (E)'s suggestion, all candidates would be ALLOWED to match each other's spending, but that doesn't mean they would be ABLE to math each other's spending.

For example, if Bill Gates ran for office and wanted to spend about $2 billion on his campaign, he might be able to vastly outspend his rivals.

Under the suggestion in (B), we may have placed a $100 million spending cap that would thwart him from spending that much. Under the suggestion in (E), he would be allowed to spend the $2 billion. (E) would say that other candidates are allowed to match his spending. But if his rival candidates are not multi-billionaires, being allowed to match Gates's spending won't actually enable them to do so. Thus, Gates will have the ability to vastly outspend his rivals, which is what the author is trying to prevent.

Let me know if you disagree with this interpretation or have one of your own. I grant you, I'm not in love with this question, but I feel that I could defend LSAT's credited response in a way similar to how I just did.

Hope this helps.

[Amir.m.shoar]

Ehhhh, I'm not terribly convinced with (B). How about a scenario where an upper limit is set but this limit is so high that it allows a candidate to vastly outspend their rivals? With (E) There is a mutual assurance of fairness.

In the Bill Gates example above, it's being implied that the wealthier candidate would set the limit for spending. However (E) says that the candidate can spend as much as any other candidate chooses to spend, meaning that the less wealthy person would set the limit.

[ohthatpatrick]

Again, let me reiterate that I'm not in love with this question, either, so I'm defending LSAT's thinking as my job.

Let me try to address some of your points:

How about a scenario where an upper limit is set but this limit is so high that it allows a candidate to vastly outspend their rivals?

I agree, an upper limit could still allow one candidate to vastly outspend his rivals.

But (B) doesn't say that "ANY upper limit would fix the situation", but rather "it would be good to set an upper limit".

If we're setting the limit with balancing the goals of giving people broad limits to spend their money and not enabling one candidate to vastly outspend his rivals, then we presumably would NOT set a crazy high upper limit that would undermine one of our goals.

With (E) There is a mutual assurance of fairness.

I think that's too strong a guarantee. I agree that (E)'s rule is fair in the sense that everyone is allowed to spend as much as anyone else. But we want to achieve a situation in which "all voices have an equal chance to be heard" and vastly outspending rivals gives a candidate "an unfair advantage in publicizing their platforms".

So if (E) allows for one candidate to vastly outspend another, which it does, then it is facilitating an UNFAIR situation as described in the stimulus.

In the Bill Gates example above, it's being implied that the wealthier candidate would set the limit for spending.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that Gates was setting any limit.

We were saying that Gates has the capacity to spend 2 billion, while no other candidate could come close.

With (E)'s rule, all other candidates would be ALLOWED to spend 2 billion (or more), but that doesn't mean they could.

With (B)'s rule, if there is an upper limit that is lower than 2 billion, then that brings Gates's campaign spending closer to everyone else's.


However (E) says that the candidate can spend as much as any other candidate chooses to spend, meaning that the less wealthy person would set the limit.

I'm not sure how you're reading that as "the less wealthy person sets the limit". With (E), there is no limit. I think you're interpreting (E) to mean that "each candidate should only be allowed to spend as much money as any other candidate".

So if one candidate only spends $100, then all other candidates are forced to only spend $100.

That's not what (E) is saying, though.

If one candidate only spends $100, then all other candidates should be allowed to spend $100. That language doesn't rule out the possibility of spending more.

The problem with reading (E) as your interpretation is that the campaign budget for EVERYONE would be set by the 1st person who is done spending.

But (E) is describing something more dynamic and interactive than that. It's saying, "If Bob spends another $5 million on his campaign, then the other candidates should be allowed to spend another $5 million on THEIR campaigns." It's a rule that would make the allowable limit for campaign spending to rise indefinitely, because as soon as "any other candidate chooses to spend" more than the current maximum, then all other candidates should be allowed to spend as much as that new maximum.

Hope this helps.