PT17-3-8: Principle Question

MatthewJA

Hello everyone,

I was wondering if somebody would be able to provide their thought process on how to best attack this question. I was not sure how to even start it, but was able to get the correct answer choice on the other 4 questions on the problem set using more intuition and POE.. I see some progress, but still have lots of work to do!

I came to the conclusion/my thought process was that AC's: B,C, and D really did not have anything to do with the QS, and did not choose A because it was talking about private funding - which I didn't understand where that should/would fit into the AC?

Thank you.

Matt1234567

Hi,

So the conclusion is that campaign for elective officials should be subsidized with public funds for two reasons:
1) Politicians would devote less time to fund raising, giving them more time to serve the public.
2) Public funds would make it possible to set caps on individual campaign contributions by large contributors, thereby reducing the chances that elected officials would cater to their interests/benefits rather than the public.

A is correct because private funding is referring to the large contributors, which is contrasted with public funding in the stimulus.
If complete reliance on private funding of some activity (electing officials) keeps the public from enjoying a benefit (the elective officials serving the interest of the large contributors instead of the public) that could be provided if public funds were used, such public funds should be provided.

This is exactly what we have in our stimulus.

c.janson35

Hey @MatthewJA, the best place to start, after understanding the task at hand, is always to identify the conclusion and premises supporting that conclusion. For a principle question, we are looking for an answer choice that, if true, would allow us to properly infer the arguments conclusion. In essence, the right AC will make the argument valid.

In this question, the conclusion is specific and prescriptive: campaigns for office should be subsidized with public funds. Why does the author say this? Well, two points: it would allow incumbents more time to serve the public rather than campaigning, and also, a capped public finance system would make it easier for elected officials to work for everyone without being beholden to corporate interests.

So, we are looking for a choice that allows us to draw this conclusion based on the premises.

A: the necessary condition in A is exactly what we are trying to prove, so this looks like it could be a winner if the sufficient condition conforms to our facts. In fact, it does: complete reliance on public funding would keep the public from enjoying some benefit that would be provided if public funds were used, because the author tells us that public funds would allow the public the benefit of having elected officials actually serve them. So A is the correct answer.

B could be correct if the argument were trying to prove terms of office being lengthened, but because that is not what the argument is saying we can eliminate it.

C allows us to conclude something about using public funds, but we aren't trying to prove that funds should be used to support rivals if large contributions flow to one candidate.

D talks about an activity NOT being publicly funded. Eliminate.

E deals with a candidate not being eligible for funding. Again not what we are trying to prove, so eliminate.

Hope this helps!

MatthewJA

Thanks to you both - solid explanations. I've got some work to do.