Political advocate: Campaigns for elective office

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct83% picked this

   If complete reliance on private funding of some activity keeps the public from enjoying a benefit that could be provided if public funds were

   Why this is right

   Wow, this is gross. In simple terms, it's saying "If an activity would bring the public a benefit, we should use public funds for it." The activity is campaigning for office. The status quo is complete reliance private funding, which deprives the public from having their incumbent work for their benefit full time (instead of using lots of time to raise funds for their campaign. If public funds were used to subsidize the campaigns, we were told that the public would enjoy the benefit of having an incumbent who can focus more on serving them. So the trigger applies to subsidizing campaigns, and the outcome says "public funds should be provided [for subsidizing campaigns]", which is a perfect match for our conclusion.

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

   83%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match1% picked this

   If election campaigns are to be funded from public funds, terms of office for elected

   This principle would allow us to conclude "terms should be lengthened", but we're looking for "campaigns should be subsidized" .

   1%
3. C

   Weaker Conclusion Match3% picked this

   If in an election campaign large contributions flow primarily to one candidate, public funds should be used to support the

   This would allow us to conclude that "we should subsidize the rivals' campaigns." That's more specific than the argument's conclusion that we should subsidize all campaigns. The evidence never spoke of contributions being lopsided, so it also doesn't connect to the evidence.

   3%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion/Evidence Match10% picked this

   If public funding of some activity produces a benefit to the public but also inevitably a special benefit for specific individuals, the activity should

   The outcome of this one is "campaigns should NOT be fully subsidized". We want a conclusion that's saying that "campaigns should be subsidized".. The trigger doesn't match "subsidizing campaigns" either. Yes, it produces a benefit to the public, but the evidence never said it inevitably produces a special benefit for specific people.

   10%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match2% picked this

   If a person would not have run for office in the absence of public campaign subsidies, this person should not be

   The outcome of this principle is that "Person X should not be eligible for campaign subsidies". We want our outcome to match "campaigns should be subsidized".

   2%