|
Author |
Message |
|
VP
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 1114
Location: London
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
56
[0], given: 0
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1478
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
73
[0], given: 0
|
Re: political parties [#permalink]
30 Aug 2007, 10:58
Ravshonbek wrote: 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.
B.
It came down to B or C for me.
A is wrong because it clearly stated that third party only capture voter from one side. D and E doesn't relate to any information given.
C is wrong as well because the question doesn't say anything about the "new voters".
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 1114
Location: London
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
56
[0], given: 0
|
The OA is D
from Gmat Plus
i do not think the OA is correct
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 261
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
D - there's neither a reference to the antonym of 'radical' here nor can it be deduced; this cannot be the answer.
E - out of context
C - no reference to new voters; not enough info to agree with the statement
B - there's neither a reference to the voters being divided equally between the 2 parties nor can it be deduced; this cannot be the answer.
I think A is the answer. It has enough info to agree with the statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 67
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
Vote for A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 May 2004
Posts: 315
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 0
|
It is B
Think this through
The argument is saying that the emergence of a third party will hurt ONE of the parties.
B is the only one where that is the case. What B is saying is that before the emergence of the third party, the voters were split about 50/50 between the two candiates. The emergence of the third party causes the voters of only ONE of the previous two parties to move to the third party.
Hence, in situation B, the voters were split 50/50 before the third party canddiate, the third party candiate would take some voters from one of the parties and you may have a 50/25/25 split..no party would get more than half the vote if the premises in the passage are true
A is outside the scope. The passage does not even get into the specifics of the platform.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Zarrolou, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat
|