The critic objects that the advocate’s

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Match7% picked this

   any resourceful large contributor can circumvent caps on individual contributions by sending in smaller amounts

   If large contributors were able to circumvent the new max donation amount and still funnel their $10k to their candidate, then the critic's objection would disappear. She's thinking that the large contributors will only be able to contribute the lower maximum amount, creating a shortfall that the candidate will have to make up for by spending more time trying to get more small contributors.

   7%
2. B

   Bad Match7% picked this

   one of the projected results cited in support of the proposal made is entailed by the other and therefore does not constitute

   According to this answer, the critic's objection was, "hey, wait a sec there ... those aren't 2 separate benefits. They're really just one 2-part benefit since one result entails the other." But the critic's objection was, "hey, wait a sec there ... the 2nd benefit you're talking about actually impedes the 1st benefit from coming true."

   7%
3. C

   Correct70% picked this

   of the two projected results cited in support of the proposal made, one works

   Why this is right

   The 2nd result (we can put caps on max contributions) works against the 1st result (the politicians won't have to spend as much time trying to do fund raising), because even with the subsidy, if candidates are denied their big contributions from large contributors, they will need to spend time finding smaller contributors to make up for those lost funds.

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

   70%
4. D

   Bad Match6% picked this

   it overlooks the possibility that large contributors will stop contributing if they cannot

   The critic's objection doesn't say anything about large contributors stopping altogether, out of anger that they cannot contribute at will. In fact, the critic doesn't mention large contributors at all.

   6%
5. E

   Bad Match9% picked this

   it overlooks the possibility that incumbents with a few extremely generous contributors will be hit harder by caps than incumbents

   The critic's objection only mentions small contributors. There's nothing there to match up with "a few extremely generous" vs. "many moderately generous".

   9%