Amy McConnell is considering running for election against the incumbent, Gregory Lutz.
Information
conditionals (if, anything = sufficient, Left side)
L has large → L far ahead camp fund + M not run
L not large → M looks at L's record camp fund for scandal fodder
M finds something → M's chances higher scandalous + M will run
M doesn't find → M will not run scandalous
Evaluate
Must Be False questions are famous for contradicting some conditional relationship that's provided. In this paragraph, we got four conditionals. The triggers of the conditionals form two binary pairs.
Lutz either has or doesn't have a large campaign fund, so one of those conditionals will be triggered, and so we know at least one of will occur.
There either will or won't be something of a scandalous nature in L's record, so it will either lead to M running for election or M not running. In this case, the outcomes are contradictory, so it's not "at least one" will occur; it's "exactly one" will occur.
We might want to think through the various scenarios that result in M running or not running.
If L has a big fund, M won't run. If L has a clean record, M won't run. If L doesn't have a big fund and doesn't have a clean record, M will run.
Goal
Let's just look for something that contradicts what we were told. We can anticipate that the correct answer will trigger one of these conditionals but they go against what the outcome of that conditional says.