Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
We have heard a good deal in recent years about the [#permalink]
03 Dec 2004, 04:27
0% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
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.
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.
THe assumption here is that, the money raised and spent is an indicative of political parties influence.
The central theme of this passage is the relative importance of two-party system. The passage supports the theory that the two-party system is still alive. How does the author support his theory? By quoting the fact that the two big partied raised a record amount for their respective campaigns.
A - Hence, it is assumed that "The amount of money raised and spent by a political party is one valid criterion for judging the influence of the party."
B - The relative number of third parties won't make a difference unless they collectively are able to raise as much money as the two big parties.
C - Not relevant
D - No third party has won an election in recent years. Media apparently has a big hand in the outcome of elections. However, mass media has not been able to catapult any third party to an election win. What could this mean? The mass media support the third party candidates over a candidate from one of the two major parties.
Sonaketu, I will give this a short in explaining it
Main Point: Reports of the imminent demise of the 2-party system are premature.
1.Heard a lot about the declining importance of the 2 major political parties.
2. Mass media decides the outcome of elections and not the power of the parties.
3. No independent or third-party candidate has won an election.
4. In the last campaign, the 2 parties raised and spent a lot more money than ever before.
From point 2 â€“ we cannot assume (D) â€“ D just says that the mass media decides the outcome of the election. For all we know the mass media might favor the person who buys more advertisement time from them and the only person who would be capable of doing that will be a person who raises and spents more money.
From point 4 â€“ we can assume that the 2 parties will be able to raise money only when they have influence over people as stated by â€˜Aâ€™