MCAT Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills Question 21: Answer and Explanation

Home > MCAT Test > MCAT critical analysis and reasoning skills practice tests

Test Information

Question: 21

5. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the US Supreme Court ruled that restrictions on political advocacy spending by capitalist corporations, labor unions, and other associations were prohibited by the First Amendment. Assuming that such spending is effective, the most reasonable expectation based on the passage is that inequality in the United States will:

  • A. stop increasing because the ruling eliminates regulations that were promoting the polarization of wealth.
  • B. continue increasing because corporations will be able to outspend unions, resulting in more pro-capitalist policies.
  • C. begin decreasing because unions will be able to outspend corporations, resulting in more pro-labor policies.
  • D. remain at its present level because corporations and labor unions are treated equally under the ruling.

Correct Answer: B

Explanation:

With a new scenario, the key will be finding the points of connection (or analogy) with the passage. The stem says that restrictions on political advocacy spending were judged to be prohibited, and that this affected corporations, unions, and other groups. In short, that means these organizations gained additional freedom to spend money on political issues at their discretion. The question stem goes on to say explicitly Assuming that such spending is effective, which tells you to take it for granted that this spending can have an impact on who gets elected and what policies get enacted. The actual question is a completion (with a colon), but it amounts to the following: given the new freedom of these groups to spend money and assuming it works, what will likely happen to inequality in the United States? Answering this is the task presented.

Before tackling those wordy answer choices, it's worthwhile to make a prediction for the correct one. Start by clarifying the nature of the trend in inequality leading up to the Supreme Court ruling. The first paragraph mentions the more recent date of 2014, within only a few years of the date from the question stem, so it offers a good reference point. There, we're told that inequality is now returning to levels not seen since the 1920s—and on the verge of surpassing them. This is hardly an isolated statement, since the idea that inequality is increasing is noted throughout the passage, which largely seeks to answer the question of why this occurs.

Now the question becomes: how will this upward trend be affected? The third paragraph offers some guidance on this question: When labor was politically ascendant . . . inequality decreased. However, with the rise of the political ideology of neoliberalism . . . inequality began to rebound. Thus, if the ruling benefits labor more, we should expect to see inequality decrease, or at least see the rate of its increase slow or stop. However, if the ruling benefits the capitalists more, then inequality should continue its rise or even accelerate.

So, who benefits more? Even though the ruling applies to both capitalist corporations and labor unions, the discussion in the last two paragraphs suggests that capitalists are in a much stronger position to take advantage of the ruling. In P5, the author notes that about half as many US workers belong to unions as once did (one-ninth versus one-fourth or one-fifth), while P6 is explicit about the success of capitalists in working together even hinting that their coordinated efforts may have caused the decline in organization among laborers. Since the capitalists have the advantage, the ruling will likely only exacerbate the discrepancy between rich and poor, leading to even greater inequality.

More thorough preparation means a quicker match when you finally look at the answer choices. Only choice (B) (continue increasing because corporations will be able to outspend unions, resulting in more pro-capitalist policies) is consistent with the prediction made.

Choices (A) (stop increasing because the ruling eliminates regulations that were promoting the polarization of wealth) and (C) (begin decreasing because unions will be able to outspend corporations, resulting in more pro-labor policies) can both immediately be discounted, since they indicate a downward trend. Moreover, there's no reason to suppose that the restrictions prohibited by the ruling were promoting the polarization of wealth, nor to suspect that unions would have the ability to outspend corporations.

Choice (D) (remain at its present level because corporations and labor unions are treated equally under the ruling) comes closer to the truth, but fails to take into account the realities described in the passage. If corporations and unions began on equal footing, then it would be true that this ruling would help neither, because it grants the same freedom to both. However, the passage makes it abundantly clear that the two groups are not at all on equal footing, that the capitalists were ascendant when this ruling was handed down. To suggest that inequality remains at its present levels would also be to ignore the fact that it continues to increase: if the ruling truly had no effect on the status quo, then presumably inequality would just keep following the upward trend described in the passage.

Previous       Next