To win democratic elections

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Weak / Out of Scope11% picked this

   the primary function of political parties in democracies whose governments do not subsidize elections might not be to provide a means of negating

   "The primary function might not be" is some very weak phrasing, so this is unlikely to be a powerful objection. Was the author assuming that political parties DO primarily function as a means of negating the influence of wealth? Nope, nothing he says sounds like that.

   11%
2. B

   Correct70% picked this

   in democracies in which elections are not fully subsidized by the government, positions endorsed by political parties might be much less varied

   Why this is right

   Yikes, this is a hard correct answer. Is it allowing us to argue that "even though rich people are distributed equally among the political parties, candidates still compromise their views to win support"? Yes, because if candidates have a wide variety of views but the political parties collectively have a much narrower range of views, then some candidates will have to compromise their views to appeal to any political party / any swath of rich people. This objection is really getting at the idea that there's a distinction between lots of choices and lots of variety. Maybe a candidate has many choices to go after rich people from a big number of political parties, but if those parties have very similar positions, then the candidate doesn't really have much variety to choose from and may have to adapt their own views to fit in with those of a political party.

   Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   70%
3. C

   Out of Scope: "government-subsidized elections"11% picked this

   in democracies, government-subsidized elections ensure that the views expressed by the people who run for office might not be overly influenced by the opinions

   This argument is about what happens in democracies that don't have subsidized elections. This answer is about what happens in democracies that do. That's irrelevant.

   11%
4. D

   Irrelevant Comparison: "wealthy vs. non-wealthy candidate"6% picked this

   in democracies in which elections are not fully subsidized by the government, it might be no easier for a wealthy person to win an

   This argument is only about what happens to non-wealthy candidates ("these" candidates) in elections when they need rich patrons. We're only analyzing whether these non-wealthy candidates will / won't compromise their beliefs. It's irrelevant whether wealth or non-wealthy candidates are more likely to win.

   6%
5. E

   Out of Scope: "other flaws"2% picked this

   a democracy in which candidates do not compromise their views in order to be elected to office

   This argument is only about whether non-wealthy candidates have to compromise their views to get the support of rich patrons. Any other flaws of this system or any other system are irrelevant to this conversation.

   2%