#19 - Editor: Many candidates say that if elected they will

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen. The correct answer choice is (A).

The stimulus begins by telling us that while many politicians promise to reduce government intrusion into the lives of voters, the politicians that actually get elected are the ones who promise to help solve their problems, which actually requires some of that intrusion, especially in the form of higher taxes. From these premises the author then concludes that over time, government intrusion into the lives of voters will continue without much reduction.

The stem asks for an answer that would strengthen the argument, so we need a new premise that makes the conclusion - continued government intrusion - seem more likely. Anything that supports that claim will suffice.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. If elected politicians keep their promises, and if we elect politicians who promise to help solve our problems, and if that can only be done by intruding in some way, such as with taxes, then it seems that our author is correct and that such intrusion will continue. Elected politicians will try to help, and in so doing will intrude on our lives. Winner!

Answer choice (B): An opposite answer, this one suggests that the politicians who were elected, who promised to try to help solve our problems, might not actually try to help. So perhaps they will not intrude on our lives after all?

Answer choice (C): The type of problems that people have is not relevant to the argument about government intrusion into the lives of voters. Money only came up as the way that intrusion might manifest itself - as taxes - and had nothing to do with what types of problems the government might try to help solve.

Answer choice (D): How burdensome the intrusion may be, or how that burden compares to the burden in non-democracies, is irrelevant to the question of whether that intrusion will continue at current levels or be reduced over time.

Answer choice (E): What politicians believe ought to be done is not important; what matters is what they promise to do and what they actually do if they are elected. This answer suggests that politicians who get elected probably don't believe they ought to do the things they promise to do, but as long as they actually do it, as in Answer A, then it makes no difference what they really believe. Their lack of belief doesn't strengthen or weaken the argument.

[saranash1]

19. I don't understand how answer a strengthen's the editor's arguments. The argument claims that governmental intrusion in to the lives of voters will rarely be substantially reduced over time in a democracy.

The campaign promise is that they will reduce governmental intrusion into voters lives.

[Nikki Siclunov]

Sara,

The campaign promise is that they will reduce governmental intrusion into voters lives.

Yes, but these candidates are not the ones being elected. If you read past the first sentence, you'll see a counterpoint: "but voters actually elect politicians who instead promise that the government will provide assistance...". This assistance comes with strings attached (taxes), which is why the author argues that gov't intrusion into our lives will not be substantially reduced.

This line of reasoning is predicated on the idea that the politicians we elect actually keep their promises. Answer choice (A) supplies that inherent supposition.

Hope this helps!

[saranash1]

How are they keeping their promise to reduce governmental intrusion if the taxes aren't going down b/c they are being spent on governmental assistance. & taxes can be considered a form of governmental intrusion?

[Nikki Siclunov]

As I explained earlier, the politicians elected are not the ones promising to reduce government intrusion:

"but voters actually elect politicians who instead promise that the government will provide assistance...".

The stimulus compares two different groups of politicians - those who promise to reduce government intrusion, and those who promise to provide assistance. We elect the latter, not the former.

[saranash1]

Oh ok. I didn't put the two and two together that the politicians elected where the ones that promise that the government will provide assistance.

[enzee]

If the most common problem people have is financial, and that requires government intrusion to solve, then how doesn't that strengthen the claim that governmental intrusion won't be reduced? I picked C and don't understand why it's wrong.

[Luke Haqq]

Hi enzee!

Happy to address why answer choice (C) is incorrect. First, it's worth noting that this was a difficult question, with only 59% of people selecting the correct answer.

To address answer choice (C), you mention,

If the most common problem people have is financial, and that requires government intrusion to solve

I see the language of the first clause of your statement in answer choice (C), but in the end I don't see language in the stimulus or that answer choice specifically stating that people's financial problems require government intrusion to solve. There's the third sentence--"Governmental assistance, however, costs money, and money can come only from taxes, which can be considered a form of governmental intrusion"--this identifies money as requiring government intrusion but with respect to governmental assistance, rather than people's financial problems. In addition, this answer choice is phrased in terms of what is "most common" as opposed to the "most pressing" problems, as in the stimulus.

To understand why (A) is correct, let's look at the conclusion: "Thus, governmental intrusion into the lives of voters will rarely be substantially reduced over time in a democracy." Why does the author believe this to be the case? The author explains that voters "actually elect politicians who ... promise that the government will provide assistance to solve their most pressing problems," so government intervention therefore isn't lessened.

However, this explanation concerns what politicians promise to do, not necessarily what they actually do. If they didn't actually do what they promised to do, then the conclusion wouldn't necessarily follow that "governmental intrusion into the lives of voters will rarely be substantially reduced." Answer choice (A) tends to this. That answer choice states, "Politicians who win their elections usually keep their campaign promises." If this were true, it connects what politicians promise to do with what they actually do. If they kept their campaign promises, then this would suggest that government intervention won't be lessened because the ones who are elected "promise that the government will provide assistance to solve [people's] most pressing problems."