Why

I have a problem with this one. Why is the answer not C. Due to the fact that taxation is the most universal intrusion of a democratic government. Also, government assistance and government practices for the people are funded by the people through taxation. Therefore, I viewed the answer as C for the best answer to strengthen the editor's argument. If financial problems is the problem for the aggregate sum of households in a democracy, then the editor I believe implies that voters would choose candidates that would lessen government intrusion. In result, lessening taxation on the people.

( I hope my little write up made sense. I love this app and am trying to prepare for the LSAT as early as possible. I still have about a year till I take it.)

I have a problem with this one. Why is the answer not C. Due to the fact that taxation is the most universal intrusion of a democratic government. Also, government assistance and government practices for the people are funded by the people through taxation. Therefore, I viewed the answer as C for the best answer to strengthen the editor's argument. If financial problems is the problem for the aggregate sum of households in a democracy, then the editor I believe implies that voters would choose candidates that would lessen government intrusion. In result, lessening taxation on the people.

( I hope my little write up made sense. I love this app and am trying to prepare for the LSAT as early as possible. I still have about a year till I take it.)

Chris Townson, here is a pretty good answer from the forum on http://www.beatthegmat.com/good-cr-lsat-t72792.html

A) Politicians who win their elections usually keep their campaign promises.

Correct. If they keep their promises (that the govt will provide assistance), it would cost money --> taxes --> intrusion. Thus strengthens the argument.

(B) Politicians never promise what they really intend to do once in office.

Incorrect. They do something other than their promise (of providing assistance), which may or may not cost money. This would not necessarily lead to intrusion.
(C) The most common problems people have are
financial problems.

Incorrect. This choice is tricky, I think. Most common does not mean most pressing. The elected politician would focus on the most pressing problem which may or may not need assistance.

(D) Governmental intrusion into the lives of voters is no more burdensome in nondemocratic
countries than it is in democracies.

Incorrect. Irrelevant.
(E) Politicians who promise to do what they actually believe ought to be done are rarely elected.

Incorrect. This choice weakens the argument. Voters prefer candidate who promises assistance. Such a candidate would provide assistance if elected. However, since such politicians are rarely elected, the ones that are elected would not want to provide financial assistance (but work on other matters) and hence would not lead to intrusion.

Thanks!

The question is about the extent of government intrusion in the lives of voters. An elected candidate usually keeping campaign promises of solving the voter's most pressing problems does not directly speak to how it is intrusive. Addressing whatever those most pressing problems could actually be less intrusive to the voters assuming that most pressing does not necessarily mean more expensive. While the question did mention that there programs cost money, no such "more pressing=higher cost" correlation was made.
But if it were true that the most common problem people face are financial, then it becomes more evidently clear that any government assistance program no matter how efficiently managed can be intrusive. C is a better answer choice in my opinion.