Mass Media...Government : GMAT Verbal Section
Check GMAT Club App Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 08 Dec 2016, 22:18

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Mass Media...Government

Author Message
Manager
Joined: 22 May 2005
Posts: 139
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2005, 14:11
We have heard a good deal in recent years about the declining importance of the two major political parties. It is the mass media, we are told, that decide the outcome of elections, not the power of the parties. But it is worth noting that no independent or third-party candidate has won any important election in recent years, and in the last nationwide campaign, the two major parties raised and spent more money than ever before in support of their candidates and platforms. It seems clear that reports of the imminent demise of the two-party system are premature at best.

Which of the following is an assumption made in the argument above?

(A) The amount of money raised and spent by a political party is one valid criterion for judging the influence of the party.

(B) A significant increase in the number of third-party candidates would be evidence of a decline in the importance of the two major parties.

(C) The two-party system has contributed significantly to the stability of the American political structure.

(D) The mass media tend to favor an independent or third-party candidate over a candidate from one of the two major parties.

(E) The mass media are relatively unimportant in deciding the outcome of most elections.
If you have any questions
New!
Director
Joined: 18 Feb 2005
Posts: 673
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2005, 18:10
E....
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 375
Location: India
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Jul 2005, 09:26
Picked B over D.

D - although MM may tend to support , the sums spent by the parties may negate their bias, hence not assumed in the stem.

HMTG.
Intern
Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 47
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Jul 2005, 11:07
I'll pick B.

Will try to explain if right.
Director
Joined: 11 Mar 2005
Posts: 725
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Jul 2005, 15:42
I refute B

I would pick B if it would have said about third part candidates winning the elections. An increase in the no of canidates shows and proves nothing to the argument.

I pick E

If mass media were really important, then 3rd party candidates should have won the elections, which did not happen
Intern
Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 47
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Jul 2005, 15:54
We have heard a good deal in recent years about the declining importance of the two major political parties. It is the mass media, we are told, that decide the outcome of elections, not the power of the parties. But it is worth noting that no independent or third-party candidate has won any important election in recent years, and in the last nationwide campaign, the two major parties raised and spent more money than ever before in support of their candidates and platforms. It seems clear that reports of the imminent demise of the two-party system are premature at best.

(B) A significant increase in the number of third-party candidates would be evidence of a decline in the importance of the two major parties.

Since no independent or third-party candidate has won any important election, I think the article assumes that an increase in third-party candidates would lead a to a decline, is that the assumption?

If the 2 major parties raised and spent more money than ever before, doesn't that mean that the 2 parties think that the mass media is important? Can this refute E?

E sounds more like a conclusion rather than an assumption.

What is the OA?
Intern
Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 47
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Jul 2005, 15:57
riteshgupta1 wrote:
I refute B

I would pick B if it would have said about third part candidates winning the elections. An increase in the no of canidates shows and proves nothing to the argument.

I pick E

If mass media were really important, then 3rd party candidates should have won the elections, which did not happen

Come to think of it, you might be right. I can't assume that the increase in candidates lead to them being elected.
Manager
Joined: 22 May 2005
Posts: 139
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 Jul 2005, 13:31

Do you want me to post the OA??
Director
Joined: 11 Mar 2005
Posts: 725
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 Jul 2005, 15:06
After reading the argument again and again and again, I think except A all are junk.

A says that p(money) is necessary to win the election, althought not sufficient.

If P is necessary, then elections can be won. No matter what?

So A seems to be it.

D could be inferred from the argument. But if you negate D, nothing happens. Negating all

B) A significant increase in the number of third-party candidates would NOT be evidence of a decline in the importance of the two major parties.
- unless they win
C)The two-party system has not contributed significantly to the stability of the American political structure. out of scope
D)The mass media does not tend to favor an independent or third-party candidate over a candidate from one of the two major parties. (may be or may not be).
E) The mass media are relatively important in deciding the outcome of most elections. (so, who cares.)

A) The amount of money raised and spent by a political party is not one valid criterion for judging the influence of the party.
Then how & Why are they winning...
Current Student
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3384
Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 279 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

16 Jul 2005, 17:47
How come all of you missed A?

A says that money is= political power and that shows that the 2 parties are still very strong...

A it is..
Intern
Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 47
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2005, 08:33
fresinha12 wrote:
How come all of you missed A?

A says that money is= political power and that shows that the 2 parties are still very strong...

A it is..

Doh, you're right. A it is.
Manager
Joined: 22 May 2005
Posts: 139
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2005, 09:42
Display posts from previous: Sort by