Victory for the ACT Student Text 15e

476 • C AMBRIDGE P RACTICE T EST R EINFORCEMENT

Below Average Response Campaign spending should be limited because when campaigns are so expensive, only people who are rich or have rich ˆ”‹‡†•…ƒ ƒˆˆ‘”† –‘ ’ƒ› ˆ‘” –Š‡…ƒ’ƒ‹‰Ǥ Š‹• ƒ‡• ‰‘˜‡”‡– Ž‡•• †‡‘…”ƒ–‹…„‡…ƒ—•‡ ‹– ‘Ž› ”‡’”‡•‡–• –Š‡ ”‹…ŠǤ Ž•‘ǡ –Š‡ ‡š’‡•‹˜‡…ƒ’ƒ‹‰• ƒ”‡ ™ƒ•–‡ˆ—ŽǤ Š‹ ‘ˆ ‡˜‡”›–Š‹‰ ‡Ž•‡ ›‘—…‘—Ž† †‘ ™‹–Š –Šƒ– ‘‡›Ǥ The main reason that campaign funding should be limited is that with the current system, you have to be very rich to run for ‘ˆϔ‹…‡Ǥ ˆ ›‘—ǯ”‡ ‘’’‘‡–…ƒ ƒˆˆ‘”† –‘ •’‡† ‹ŽŽ‹‘• ‘ˆ †‘ŽŽƒ”• ‘ ƒ…ƒ’ƒ‹‰ ƒ† ›‘—…ƒǯ–ǡ ›‘— ™‹ŽŽ „‡ ƒ– ƒ †‹•ƒ†˜ƒ–ƒ‰‡ „‡…ƒ—•‡ ›‘— ™‘ǯ– „‡ ƒ„Ž‡ –‘ ƒˆˆ‘”† –‘ ’”‘‘–‡ ›‘—ǯ”‡…ƒ’ƒ‹‰ ƒ• —…ŠǤ Ž•‘ǡ Š‹‰Š…ƒ’ƒ‹‰ •’‡†‹‰ ‡ƒ• –Šƒ– ’‡‘’Ž‡ …ƒ „ƒ•‹…ƒŽŽ› „—› ‹ϔŽ—‡…‡ ‹ ‰‘˜‡”‡–Ǥ Š‡ ‘”‡ ›‘—…ƒ ’ƒ›ǡ –Š‡ „‡––‡” •Š‘– ›‘—”…ƒ†‹†ƒ–‡ Šƒ• ƒ– Ž‡ƒ†‹‰ ƒ „‹‰‰‡” campaign and winning the election. Š‡ ‘‡› •’‡– ‘ ‡Ž‡…–‹‘• ‹• ƒŽ•‘ ™ƒ•–‡ˆ—Ž ‹ƒ‰‹‡ ™Šƒ– ‡Ž•‡ ›‘—…‘—Ž† †‘ ™‹–Š ‹–Ǥ ‘” ‡šƒ’Ž‡ǡ –Š‡ „‹ŽŽ‹‘• ‘ˆ †‘ŽŽƒ”• —•‡† on campaign spending could instead be spent on charities or government programs that the politician supports. This would „‡ ƒ —…Š ‘”‡…‘•–”—…–‹˜‡ —•‡ ‘ˆ ’‡‘’Ž‡ǯ• ‘‡›Ǥ ƒ’ƒ‹‰ •’‡†‹‰ Ž‡ƒ†• –‘ —ˆƒ‹” ‡Ž‡…–‹‘• ™Š‡”‡ –Š‡ ”‹…Š Šƒ˜‡ ƒ Ž‘– ‘”‡ ‹ϔŽ—‡…‡ –Š‡ –Š‡ ”‡•– ‘ˆ –Š‡…‘—–”›Ǥ —”–Š‡”‘”‡ǡ ‹–ǯ• Œ—•– ƒ Š—‰‡ ™ƒ•–‡ ‘ˆ ‘‡› –Šƒ–…‘—Ž† „‡ •’‡– „‡––‡” ‡Ž•‡™Š‡”‡Ǥ Ideas and Analysis: It is clear that the writer is against unlimited campaign spending, but the writer does not use enough reasoning or examples to support his or her argument. The essay develops Perspective 2, but the writer makes no mention of Perspectives 1 and 3. The essay would be stronger if the writer recognized multiple points of view and explained more thoroughly why he or she is against unlimited campaign spending. Development and Support: • The introduction previews the writer’s opinions, but the writer only presents two main arguments against campaign spending, and the second argument is not well developed. Furthermore, the writer does not specify how campaign spending should be limited. • In the body paragraphs, the writer does not use concrete examples to support his or her arguments. Ȉ  –Š‡ ϐ‹”•– „‘†› ’ƒ”ƒ‰”ƒ’Šǡ –Š‡ ™”‹–‡” ƒ”‰—‡• Š‘™ —Ž‹‹–‡†…ƒ’ƒ‹‰ •’‡†‹‰ ˆƒ˜‘”• –Š‡ ”‹…ŠǤ Ž–Š‘—‰Š –Š‡ reasoning is logical, the paragraph would be stronger with concrete examples, rather than just the writer’s opinions. • In the second body paragraph, the writer has a valid point when he or she says that campaign spending is a waste of money. However, the argument is not plausible. One cannot assume that the money a corporation or individual donor would have spent on a campaign would be used “constructively.” Organization: • The writer states his or her opinions in the introduction but does not combine these arguments into a clear thesis. • The topic sentences should have transitions to introduce new ideas in the following paragraph. Ȉ Š‡ ϐ‹”•– „‘†› ’ƒ”ƒ‰”ƒ’Š •Š‘—Ž† Šƒ˜‡ ƒ –‘’‹…•‡–‡…‡ –Šƒ– ‹• ‘”‡ ‰‡‡”ƒŽǤ Š‡ –‘’‹…•‡–‡…‡ Œ—•– ‡–‹‘• –Šƒ– ›‘— —•– „‡ ”‹…Š –‘ ”— ˆ‘” ‘ˆϐ‹…‡ǡ „—– –Š‡ ’ƒ”ƒ‰”ƒ’Š †‹•…—••‡• –Š‡ ƒ†˜ƒ–ƒ‰‡• ‘ˆ „‡‹‰ ƒ ”‹…Š ’‘Ž‹–‹…‹ƒ ƒ† ƒ rich donor. Another solution would be to write one paragraph about politicians’ wealth and a separate paragraph about donors’ wealth.