Please explain

Never mind. I understand it now. I miss interpreted the question stem.

What is the flaw in the stimulus?

Hi @Ashley-Tien, thanks for your post. Let's first examine the stimulus carefully. The political advocate presents an argument, the conclusion of which is "campaigns for elective office should be subsidized with public funds." Why? Two premises are given: (1) it would allow politicians to devote less time to fundraising, and (2) it would make individual campaign contribution caps possible, reducing the influence of individual large contributors. The critic responds to this proposal by pointing out a problem: if there are individual campaign contribution caps, then candidates have to spend more time finding more small campaign contributors. In other words, the second benefit the political advocate identifies undermines the first benefit - because if political candidate have to spend more time finding more small contributors, they won't actually be able to allow politicians to devote less time to fundraising after all. The critic's objection may be described as pointing out a flaw in the political advocate's argument, that is, "of the two project results [the advocate cites] in support of the proposal made [that is, that campaigns should be subsidized with public funds], one [increasing the number of small contributors needed] works against the other [decreasing the amount of time a candidate has to spend fundraising]." These flawed method of reasoning questions can be hard because the answer choices are sometimes written in abstract terms. Half the battle is getting a solid grip on what, exactly, is happening in the stimulus; the other half is having the ability to translate the abstract language of the answer choices so that you can select the right one. Practice makes perfect! Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.