LSAT 117 – Section 4 – Question 23

LSAT 117 - Section 4 - Question 23

October 2004

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:07

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT117 S4 Q23	+LR	Most strongly supported +MSS Fill in the blank +Fill Value Judgment +ValJudg	A 3% 158 B 80% 163 C 8% 159 D 3% 154 E 7% 159	132 145 158	+Medium	147.423 +SubsectionMedium

Political scientist: One of the most interesting dilemmas in contemporary democratic politics concerns the regulation of political campaign spending. People certainly should be free, within broad limits, to spend their money as they choose. On the other hand, candidates who can vastly outspend all rivals have an unfair advantage in publicizing their platforms. Democratic governments have a strong obligation to ensure that all voices have an equal chance to be heard, but governments should not subsidize expensive campaigns for each candidate. The resolution of the dilemma, therefore, is clear: _______.

Summary

The political scientist tells us about a dilemma regarding campaign spending. People should generally get to spend their money freely, but it’s also unfair that some candidates are able to far outspend others. The government should ensure that all candidates’ voices have a more equal chance to be heard. However, the government should not subsidize everyone’s expensive election campaigns.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

One strongly supported conclusion is that the government should intervene rather than allowing the unfair status quo to continue. Another is that the government should level the playing field by limiting campaign spending, which wouldn’t require subsidies.

only candidates with significant campaign resources should be permitted to run for public office

This is anti-supported. The political scientist says that the government should allow all voices an equal chance, and banning candidates who don’t have lots of money would do the opposite.

an upper limit on the political campaign spending of each candidate is warranted

This is strongly supported by the stimulus. The political scientist tells us that campaign finance discrepancies are unfair, and the government should ensure more equality. However, we shouldn’t subsidize campaigns, so the remaining option is spending limits.

government subsidization of all political campaigns at a low percentage of their total cost is warranted

This is anti-supported by the stimulus. The political scientist thinks that we should reduce the unfair spending advantage of some candidates over others, and paying for an equal portion of all campaigns would leave everyone just as unequal as ever.

all wealthy persons should be prohibited from spending their own money on political campaigns

This is anti-supported. The political scientist claims that in general, people should be allowed to spend their money freely, with only certain “broad” limits. An extreme limitation like this would be totally at odds with that principle.

each candidate should be allowed to spend as much money on a political campaign as any other candidate chooses to spend

This claim is anti-supported. The political scientist’s point is that allowing total freedom in campaign spending results in an unfair advantage for some candidates, which we should be trying to fix, not allowing to go ahead.

LSAT 117 – Section 4 – Question 23

LSAT 117 - Section 4 - Question 23

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 117 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel