Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 28 Aug 2016, 17:16

### 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

# political parties

Author Message
VP
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 1104
Location: London
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 98 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2007, 10:23
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: 1459
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 227 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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: 1104
Location: London
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 98 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2007, 13:47
The OA is D

from Gmat Plus

i do not think the OA is correct
Manager
Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 248
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2007, 21:29
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 [?]: 36 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2007, 07:47
Vote for A
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 May 2004
Posts: 311
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2007, 08:54
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.
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 While political discourse and the media in the United States have focu 4 23 Sep 2014, 12:36
2 Political Advocacy Group 8 11 Nov 2008, 10:06
5 political 10 23 Jan 2008, 22:36
Display posts from previous: Sort by