Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself in the ne

Very good question here, let's try to analize it quickly.

CPX works pretty good on this one.
We actually have a nice CP, P combo.
CP= Counterpremise
P=Premise

So the first bold actually supports an opposing view and the second bold face in fact support the main conclusion of the argument
Let's take a peep at the answer choices

I think C and D are pretty close here. But note that C says that the bold face is a premise, while D says that it is the counterconclusion.
Now, the second part is very similar in both as well. So it is going to be a delicate choice. Let's proceed, shall we?
So what is the first bold actually? From my understanding, it is in fact a counterpremise as a stated before.

Some claim that America’s success stems from the two party
system. (Counterpremise) These people say that a third party would make the passage of legislation and thus
governance impossible (Counterconclusion)

So for me the answer should be C, but I'm probably making a mistake in my reasoning.
Experts, will you shed some light on this one?
Thanks in advance
Cheers
J

It is the primary claim because it is explained then; Furthermore…This second part is actually the premise of the passage. Hence option D is better than option C and is in fact the correct answer choice. Bite that C is wrong because the premise, (second boldface) does NOT argue against anything, it is simply a new statement that undermined the premise of the opponents. Hence D stands

Answer: D

Dear jlgdr, kinghyts, and shagalo,

They mean opposition to the first "section in bold face".

The political analyst suggests that America needs a third party. This is the main point of the analyst's argument.

The analyst first points out an "opposing claim" made by some people. This is the first bold face section. The analyst then points out an additional claim made by these people.

The analyst responds to these claims by providing "facts" (evidence) that counter the first claim (only the governance one, not the additional claim of the sluggish pace of government and the burden of a third party).

Put all these elements together, and you get D. D clearly explains the functions of the two bold face portions.

What about B and E?

B says that the first opposes the premises of the argument. What are the premises? Multi-party systems seem to be doing rather well -- a fact. The first bold face doesn't say that multi-part systems are NOT doing well; it merely upholds a different claim about the two-party system. It is perfectly acceptable for both two-party and multi-party systems to do well; one doesn't exclude or preclude the other. So the first bold face does not oppose the premises of the argument. B also says that the second is a claim that the argument supports. One can verify whether most countries have multi-party systems and whether few/many people complain about the governance. So the second bold face contains two verifiable statements, i.e. fact/evidence, not a claim.

The first part of E is correct; the first bold face portion is indeed a claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument. But the second is not a claim, as discussed above. Also, the first does not oppose the fact/evidence in the second part, as discussed above. (Another subtle point is that, if the first opposed the second, it should have come before, not after, the second, in the sequence of events.)

Evidence can effectively oppose a claim; it's absurd to imply that a claim can oppose fact.


--Prasad

Answer should be D.
Author`s main point: "What America needs is a permanent third party."
Then the argument shift to explain what the opponents of this view are claiming, which is BF-1 followed by the reasoning given by opponents.
Again shift happens in the argument with "Yet", and author bolsters his main point with a premise (BF-2).

A. The first is the main point of the argument (WRONG); the second is a premise that supports that point.

B. The first opposes the premises of the argument (WRONG) ; the second is the claim that the argument supports (WRONG).

C. The first supports the main position held by opponents of the main point (WRONG- First is the claim not support to the claim); the second is a premise that argues against that position.

D. The first is the primary claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument (CORRECT); the second is evidence proposed in opposition to the first (CORRECT).

E. The first is a claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the second is the claim that the first opposes (WRONG)

A great post that covers this question.

Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself in the negligible crack between the American right and left will do little to expand the public debate. What America needs is a permanent third party. Some claim that America’s success stems from the two party system. These people say that a third party would make the passage of legislation and thus governance impossible. Furthermore, they point to the current sluggish pace of government as proof that the country cannot bear the burden of a third party. Yet, most European countries have multi-party systems and few complain about any inability to govern there.

Which of the following best describes the functions of the two sections in boldface in the argument above?

* ID Conclusion: What America needs is a permanent third party
> BF1: does not agree that America needs 3rd party (due to America's success coming from 2-party system)
> BF2: sounds like evidence

A) The first is the main point of the argument; the second is a premise that supports that point.
- BF1 is NOT the main point of the argument. also, BF2 does NOT support the same point that BF1 makes

b) The first opposes the premises of the argument; the second is the claim that the argument supports.
- BF1 does not oppose the premise of the argument...it is opposite to the conclusion of the argument. BF2 is NOT a claim, it is more like evidence.

c) The first supports the main position held by opponents of the main point; the second is a premise that argues against that position.
- BF2 does not necessarily argue AGAINST the main point.

d) The first is the primary claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the second is evidence proposed in opposition to the first.
- Correct as is

e) The first is a claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the second is the claim that the first opposes.
- BF2 is NOT a claim, it is more like evidence

Kudos please if you find this helpful

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.