Logical Reasoning

PT17 · S3 · Q7 The critic objects that the advocate’s

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Political advocate: Campaigns for elective office should be subsidized with public funds.

Advocate's Conclusion

We should subsidize campaigns with public funds.

Advocate's Evidence

It would save incumbents the time they spend fund-raising and, if it allowed us to set caps on max contributions, it would reduce the amount that candidates are beholden to large contributors, both of which should mean that the politician would be better able to serve the public.

Critic's Objection

If you set a cap on contribution size, then candidates will end up spending more time seeking our small contributions.

Evaluate

The critic is essentially saying that one unintended (and undesirable) effect of the advocate's plan would potentially screw up one of the intended desirable effects.

The advocate is hoping that by providing subsidies (i.e. by giving candidates $100k of public money to run a campaign), an incumbent politician would suddenly have more time on their hands to serve their constituents -- they wouldn't be worried about trying to raise $100k of contributions in order to fund their re-election campaign.

But, the advocate also said that by giving candidates a subsidy we could set a cap on individual campaign contributions. Maybe right now individuals can contribute up to $10k, whereas we could set a cap saying you can contribute at most $1k.

In the current system, maybe a candidate raises $100k by relying on ten big donors who each contribute the max. As a result of their big donations, the candidate feels obliged to look out for their interests, to "work for their benefit".

The critic's objection is that if we set contribution caps, then now a candidate would need to find 100 donors to contribute $1k each instead of 10 donors to contribute $10k. Since that is ten times as much work soliciting campaign contributions, it means an increase in the time-drain of fund raising.

Goal

So the critic is saying, "one of your suggestions your plan makes would have a ramification that would undermine one of the intended benefits of your plan.

The critic objects that the advocate’s argument is flawed because

any resourceful large contributor can
Bad Match
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.
6% picked this
one of the projected results
Bad Match
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% picked this
Correct
of the two projected results
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.
71% picked this
it overlooks the possibility that
Bad Match
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% picked this
it overlooks the possibility that
Bad Match
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% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free