To determine the most reliable inference from the passage, we need to closely analyze each choice in light of the information provided:The passage states that a 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." This indicates that the third-party candidate pulls voters from only one of the major parties, affecting the outcome unevenly.
Evaluating Each Option:(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.
- This is contradicted by the passage, which explicitly states that the third-party candidate attracts voters from only one of the two major parties, not equally from both.
(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.
- This statement might seem reasonable but does not directly follow from the information given. The entrance of a third-party candidate pulling voters from one major party could still leave the other major party with a significant share of the votes, potentially more than half if the third party significantly impacts the split.
(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.
- The passage does not provide any information regarding how third-party candidates affect new voters or their likelihood to attract those who have not previously voted in the two-party system. This option assumes too much about voter behavior that isn't covered in the passage.
(D) The political stance of a third party will be more radical than that of either of the two major parties.
- There is nothing in the passage that suggests that the political stance of the third party is more radical. The passage only discusses the effect on voter support, not the nature of the third-party’s politics.
(E) The founders of a third party are likely to be a coalition consisting of former leaders of the two major parties.
- This option is also not supported by the passage, which makes no mention of the origins or leadership of the third party, only its impact on voter distribution between the existing two major parties.
Conclusion:None of the given options can be directly and reliably inferred from the factual information stated in the passage. Each of the choices introduces assumptions or details not provided or suggested by the text. In this case, if we are to choose the most connected to the passage, it would still be difficult as each extends beyond the passage's scope, but (B) could be considered if forced to pick, acknowledging its limitation in not being a direct or necessarily accurate inference based on the structure of voting shifts alone. However, it's important to note that strictly speaking, none of the options perfectly aligns as a reliable inference from the given passage.