GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 16 Jul 2018, 22:58

### 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

# In a political system with only two major parties, the

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 71
In a political system with only two major parties, the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2008, 17:24
5
18
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

59% (01:37) correct 41% (01:42) wrong based on 1080 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.

CEO
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2896
Re: CR - Political Parties [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2008, 15:51
10
1
Okay according to B

Votes are divided equally. Lets say there are 100 voters.

So

Now a candidate C enters the race. According to the passage C is likely to take over either A's votebank or B's vote bank. Lets say C takes over A's vote bank by 10%.

Now
A - 40
B - 50
C - 10

As you can see, neither of the three parties will get over 50% of the votes. This is the quintessential CR numbers trap. You have to dig deeper than the surface to find the actual answer.

cheers.
##### General Discussion
Director
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 913
Re: CR - Political Parties [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2008, 18:22
Premise 1: 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. Premise 2: 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.
Conclusion: 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.

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.
As per premise 1 only 1 of the parties should get affected not both, so this is incorrect.

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.
As per premise 1 only 1 of the parties should get affected not both, so this is incorrect.

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.
Passage says third candidate affects one of the major parties candidate by drawing his/her voters, so it can be assumed that new voters who never voted might not vote from this third candidate.

D. The political stance of a third party will be more radical than that of either of the two major parties.
The passage does not support that third party will have radical views.

E. The founders of a third party are likely to be a coalition consisting of former leaders of the two major parties.
This is again in contrary to premise 1. Because if third party is coalition of former leaders from both parties, then voters of both candidates should be affected.

Manager
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 71
Re: CR - Political Parties [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2008, 19:13
You guys are falling for the same trap I did...at least I'm not alone.
Manager
Joined: 04 Apr 2008
Posts: 204
Location: Pune
Re: CR - Political Parties [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2008, 19:36
abhijit_sen wrote:
Premise 1: 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. Premise 2: 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.
Conclusion: 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.

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.
As per premise 1 only 1 of the parties should get affected not both, so this is incorrect.

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.
As per premise 1 only 1 of the parties should get affected not both, so this is incorrect.

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.
Passage says third candidate affects one of the major parties candidate by drawing his/her voters, so it can be assumed that new voters who never voted might not vote from this third candidate.

D. The political stance of a third party will be more radical than that of either of the two major parties.
The passage does not support that third party will have radical views.

E. The founders of a third party are likely to be a coalition consisting of former leaders of the two major parties.
This is again in contrary to premise 1. Because if third party is coalition of former leaders from both parties, then voters of both candidates should be affected.

How can C be the infrence when it is written that "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" so i suppose it would have been a better infrence if it was written that new party will attract new canidates who have no voted for anone as this goes in line with the passage and is not explicitly stated in the passage...............
_________________

Every Problem Has a Sloution So keep working
AB

Director
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 913
Re: CR - Political Parties [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2008, 20:37
sebycb976 wrote:
You guys are falling for the same trap I did...at least I'm not alone.

A blind following another blind and both falling in ditch does not make condition any better.
Director
Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Posts: 737
Location: Oxford
Schools: Oxford'10
Re: CR - Political Parties [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2008, 00:00
4
2
sebycb976 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.

I go for B, since if before the 3rd party comes into the picture, there was a 50-50 split, the third party will only get voters from only one pool. So the 50-50 split will turn into a 50-(50-X)-X split. So B, and only B can be correctly inferred
CEO
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2896
Re: CR - Political Parties [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2008, 00:54
1
Its clear B guys.

Manager
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 71
Re: CR - Political Parties [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2008, 10:07
B is the OA although I am still not 100% clear I understand the reason.
Manager
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 71
Re: CR - Political Parties [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2008, 16:41
Many thanks bsd, makes sense now
Director
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 751
Re: CR - Political Parties [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2008, 18:20
3
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. [ Not true – as per argument, the third party draws unequally – eliminate it]

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. [true – Hold it]

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. [this may be true – but since argument never discusses about new voters - eliminate it]

D. The political stance of a third party will be more radical than that of either of the two major parties. [too extreme – eliminate it]

E. The founders of a third party are likely to be a coalition consisting of former leaders of the two major parties. [Not per argument – eliminate it]

Manager
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 234
In a political system with only two major parties, the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jun 2009, 07:59
1
2
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.
_________________

Choose Life

Manager
Joined: 15 May 2009
Posts: 164
Re: In a political system with only two major parties, the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 27 Jun 2009, 12:12
trainspotting 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.

Here we have a 'must be true' question...

(A) we don't know that the influence will be 'equal'... a third party might draw 60% of its votes from one party & 40 from the other.
(C) We can't deduce this from the info, for it did not discuss new/old voters.
(D) We don't know this either, we just know the 3rd party will only appeal to one party's members or those of the other, the info does not tell us anything about political ideology.
(E) We also can't deduce this from the info; in fact, considering that only the members of ONE party will be attracted, this is most likely not true.

By POE, we're left with (B).

Originally posted by GMATaddict on 27 Jun 2009, 11:21.
Last edited by GMATaddict on 27 Jun 2009, 12:12, edited 1 time in total.
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Jun 2008
Posts: 279
Re: In a political system with only two major parties, the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jun 2009, 12:06
B for me too
Manager
Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 64
Re: In a political system with only two major parties, the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Oct 2009, 07:09
is something wrong with the wordings of otion B

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.

it itself says "voters were divided equally between the two major parties,"

if there are 100 voters and we divide them equally between two major parties then for sure neither parties is likely to capture more than 1/2 of the votes.

anything u divide equally between to people each will get 1/2 of it.
Manager
Joined: 30 Sep 2009
Posts: 52
Re: In a political system with only two major parties, the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Oct 2009, 09:25
B can be the only option. But not through a sound logical conclusion but because other options were even worse..
Manager
Joined: 03 Aug 2009
Posts: 77
Re: In a political system with only two major parties, the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Oct 2009, 11:22
hitman4683v1 wrote:
B can be the only option. But not through a sound logical conclusion but because other options were even worse..

I have doubt with anser B. Since it is "Must be true" question type, the answer must be inferred from the stimulus. Whereas the stimulus only tells that the emergance of the thrid party affects once of the two party and it does not tell about individual positions of two parties.
Where am i wrong?
_________________

Consider kudos for good post.

Manager
Joined: 30 Sep 2009
Posts: 52
Re: In a political system with only two major parties, the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Oct 2009, 11:36
gmataspirant2009 wrote:
hitman4683v1 wrote:
B can be the only option. But not through a sound logical conclusion but because other options were even worse..

I have doubt with anser B. Since it is "Must be true" question type, the answer must be inferred from the stimulus. Whereas the stimulus only tells that the emergance of the thrid party affects once of the two party and it does not tell about individual positions of two parties.
Where am i wrong?

As I said, I too was not fully convinced with B, however even the other options do not make sense
C -> The never voted people are never discussed in the passage
D -> Purely out of scope
E -> True in case of politics of my country but hey author never referred to my country
A -> Since the premise says that only one particular party of the earlier two parties would loose the votes, so this option is also negated, plus it makes an additional unstated assumption, that the 3rd party is a compromise.

That leaves option B, which is the better of all 5 evils
Intern
Joined: 12 Mar 2010
Posts: 9
Re: CR - Political Parties [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jun 2010, 06:16
For this relatively hard inference question, I used the process of elimination to get to the right answer.

a.) This is wrong because the 2nd sentence states that "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", therefore the third party would not draw equally from both parties.

b.) this is true, since there are only two political parties and voters were divided equally over the two parties. As a result, both parties will ofcourse capture only half a vote. Therefore, "neither of the major parties is likely to capture much more than one-half of the vote." Therefore, B is CORRECT.
the trick is that you need to read through a negative format which is not intuitive for most people or just me, haha.

c.) We never talk about new voters. Plus new voters can have ideas of whom they want to vote. For ex: if this voter came from TEXAS, very religious and conservatives family, then he/she is likely to go for Republican. She wouldn't be parties neutral.

d.) we only talk about voters distribution, but not political parties stance, so this answer choice is out of scope

e.) We never talk about founders of both parties. Therefore this one is out.
Director
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 554
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Finance
Re: CR - Political Parties [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2010, 05:35
A. Whether there is a compromise or not, part C (3rd party) will ALWAYS draw membership from only one of the other party (A or B). WRONG
B. Before formation of party, if A and B had equal voters, then of the parties less one candidate will be fewer than 50; at best 51: 49 CORRECT
C. We are not told what effect, if any, the number of those who refuse to vote for either A or B will have on party C... Out of scope and it is WRONG
_________________

KUDOS me if you feel my contribution has helped you.

Re: CR - Political Parties   [#permalink] 19 Jun 2010, 05:35

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 43 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Events & Promotions

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.