In a political system with only two major parties, the entrance of a third-party candidate into an election race damages the chances of only one of the two major candidates. The third-party candidate always attracts some of the voters who might otherwise have voted for one of the two major candidates, but not voters who support the other candidate. Since a third-party candidacy affects the two major candidates unequally, for reasons neither of them has any control over, the practice is unfair and should not be allowed.

If the factual information in the passage above is true, which of the following can be most reliably inferred from it?

(A) If the political platform of the third party is a compromise position between that of the two major parties, the third party will draw its voters equally from the two major parties.
(B) If, before the emergence of a third party, voters were divided equally between the two major parties, neither of the major parties is likely to capture much more than one-half of the vote.
(C) A third-party candidate will not capture the votes of new voters who have never voted for candidates of either of the two major parties.
(D) The political stance of a third party will be more radical than that of either of the two major parties.
(E) The founders of a third party are likely to be a coalition consisting of former leaders of the two major parties.

Explain your choice please.

Its clear B guys.

similar reasons to buddady's

Premise 1: In a political system with only two major parties, the entrance of a third-party candidate into an election race damages the chances of only one of the two major candidates. Premise 2: The third-party candidate always attracts some of the voters who might otherwise have voted for one of the two major candidates, but not voters who support the other candidate.
Conclusion: Since a third-party candidacy affects the two major candidates unequally, for reasons neither of them has any control over, the practice is unfair and should not be allowed.

A. If the political platform of the third party is a compromise position between that of the two major parties, the third party will draw its voters equally from the two major parties.
As per premise 1 only 1 of the parties should get affected not both, so this is incorrect.

B. If, before the emergence of a third party, voters were divided equally between the two major parties, neither of the major parties is likely to capture much more than one-half of the vote.
As per premise 1 only 1 of the parties should get affected not both, so this is incorrect.

C. A third-party candidate will not capture the votes of new voters who have never voted for candidates of either of the two major parties.
Passage says third candidate affects one of the major parties candidate by drawing his/her voters, so it can be assumed that new voters who never voted might not vote from this third candidate.

D. The political stance of a third party will be more radical than that of either of the two major parties.
The passage does not support that third party will have radical views.

E. The founders of a third party are likely to be a coalition consisting of former leaders of the two major parties.
This is again in contrary to premise 1. Because if third party is coalition of former leaders from both parties, then voters of both candidates should be affected.

So Answer is C.

You guys are falling for the same trap I did...at least I'm not alone.

A blind following another blind and both falling in ditch does not make condition any better.

B is the OA although I am still not 100% clear I understand the reason.

A. If the political platform of the third party is a compromise position between that of the two major parties, the third party will draw its voters equally from the two major parties. [ Not true – as per argument, the third party draws unequally – eliminate it]

B. If, before the emergence of a third party, voters were divided equally between the two major parties, neither of the major parties is likely to capture much more than one-half of the vote. [true – Hold it]

C. A third-party candidate will not capture the votes of new voters who have never voted for candidates of either of the two major parties. [this may be true – but since argument never discusses about new voters - eliminate it]

D. The political stance of a third party will be more radical than that of either of the two major parties. [too extreme – eliminate it]

E. The founders of a third party are likely to be a coalition consisting of former leaders of the two major parties. [Not per argument – eliminate it]

Answer: B

A. Whether there is a compromise or not, part C (3rd party) will ALWAYS draw membership from only one of the other party (A or B). WRONG
B. Before formation of party, if A and B had equal voters, then of the parties less one candidate will be fewer than 50; at best 51: 49 CORRECT
C. We are not told what effect, if any, the number of those who refuse to vote for either A or B will have on party C... Out of scope and it is WRONG
_________________

KUDOS me if you feel my contribution has helped you.

That was tricky. But I did get B by POE. Here's how.

(A) If the political platform of the third party is a compromise position between that of the two major parties, the third party will draw its voters equally from the two major parties.
The question mentions that the 3rd party will get its votes from only one of the two parties.

(B) If, before the emergence of a third party, voters were divided equally between the two major parties, neither of the major parties is likely to capture much more than one-half of the vote.
This remains. So B.

(C) A third-party candidate will not capture the votes of new voters who have never voted for candidates of either of the two major parties.
Words such as 'will not' or 'never voted' seem too strong. Eliminate.
(D) The political stance of a third party will be more radical than that of either of the two major parties.
Political stance? Not important. Eliminate

(E) The founders of a third party are likely to be a coalition consisting of former leaders of the two major parties.
Who cares about founders? OOS.
_________________

If you like my post, consider giving me KUDOS!

Very clear explanation hanumayamma...Went for C too, as per your reasoning...
_________________

Always aim at the moon. Never mind if you miss, you will fall in the stars
http://magusgmatprep.blogspot.com/

November 5, 2011: GMAT 1 630 Q42 V35