In a political system with only two major parties, the entrance of a

Question

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.

bsd_lover · Accepted Answer

Okay according to B

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

So
A - 50 votes
B - 50 votes

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.

buffdaddy · Answer

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

hanumayamma · Answer

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.

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 ]

Answer: B

gmatbull · Answer

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

anshumishra · Answer

Using the info here :
"In this important election the third-party extremist candidate attracted some of the voters who otherwise would have voted for one of the two major candidates,  but not voters who supported the other candidate ."

Choice A - 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. - CORRECT

OldFritz · Answer

This is a fun math-based problem.

Correct answer is option B.

Let's assume the two major parties each have 50 votes out of a total 100 votes. And we know that a third party will take some of the 50 votes of ONLY ONE of the parties leaving the votes of the other party intact. Thus, no party would (still) have more than 50% of the votes or more than 50 votes.

Cheers,
Der alte Fritz.

uledssul · Answer

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.

- Wrong because the author states that  the third party affects the other two candidates unequally

(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.

- Not sure at first... 'The third-party candidate always attracts  some of the voters  who might otherwise have voted for one of the two major candidates'

Then,  some usually means about 30% or less than a half.  Therefore, this fits into the premise.

(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.

Out of scope

(D) The political stance of a third party will be more radical than that of either of the two major parties.

Out of scope

(E) The founders of a third party are likely to be a coalition consisting of former leaders of the two major parties.

Out of scope

rgmes3 · Answer

Answer: B

The conclusion that can be inferred here is that the entrance of a third party will affect both voters unequally.

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.
 There is no reference in the passage regarding the position a party takes and how it affects other parties' voters. -- 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.
 Correct - According to the passage, the new third party would take some votes at least, and will also bring in its own voters, hence the new tally won't allow any one party to have more the 1/2 of the votes. 
(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 is ambiguous - as we know the new party will bring its own voters - those could be voters who have not voted for anyone else before. -- incorrect 
(D) The political stance of a third party will be more radical than that of either of the two major parties.
 Similar to A, no opinions or stance of a party is known -- incorrect 
(E) The founders of a third party are likely to be a coalition consisting of former leaders of the two major parties.
 No information in the passage suggests a coalition of other party leaders -- incorrect.

BeckyRobinsonTPR · Answer

In an inference question you are looking for the thing you know to be true from the paragraph ALONE. You are not looking to add extra information or change the author's opinion in any way. a good start to these question types is to elminate answer choices that bring in new information that is not contained in the passage. In this question:

A is out becuase it directly contradicts the passage - saying the third party will pull voters equally while the passage says a third party will only pull voters from one side.
C is out becuase the passage does not discuss new voters so we can't know that for sure.
D is out becuase we don't know the nature of the political stance of a new party
E is out becuase we don't know how a third party would be founded.

This leaves B which must be true because the passage says a third party would only pull voters from one party - thus if each party started with 50% then a third party would pull some votes from one side, leaving the other side untouched. Therefore, it is unlikely one party will get more than 50%. Also notice the "mushy" wording in the word "likely" this makes it easier to prove true over an answer that says something will happen.

kanika24 · Answer

kindly tell me in this passage where the author has referred that the votes will be divided in 50-50% before the arrival of the third party .

svasan05 · Answer

Hi Kanika

Nowhere in the passage does it mention that the votes are divided equally between the two existing parties.

However, answer option (B) does state this as a  conditional  ie;  IF  the vote was divided equally, then something happens. Our job here is not to assess whether the condition is true or not - we need to merely assess whether the outcome stated in option (B) will occur  IF  the condition stated is satisfied. This is clearly true, since the third party will capture votes from one of the parties and there is nothing to suggest a transfer of votes from the existing party losing votes to the one that does not lose votes. Therefore, it can be expected that the party that does not lose votes will merely retain its earlier vote share, which is given as ~50%.

Hope this clarifies.

Raman109 · Answer

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.

Tinytrotter · Answer

I went for (B) but selected that only because of POE. It is not a preferred answer.

Reason is that while the passage does tell us about how the induction of a new party will affect voting dynamics for the 2 existing parties. However, the passage does not provide any information about whether or not one of the 2 existing parties can draw voters from each other or from the third party.

Choosing Option (B) requires me to make an assumption that if there are Party A & B each with 50% share and Party C enters taking 20% voter share from Party A, then Party B will not siphon even 1% voters from either Party (A) or Party (C) - Quite unlikely in the real world but also an additional assumption we make for the sake of choosing (B) as our answer.

egmat · Answer

Hi Tinytrotter,

Your instinct to question B is healthy, but notice what you actually did: you imported a real-world dynamic the passage never put on the table. You said yourself it's about whether "Party B will not siphon even 1% voters" - that's a possibility  you  added, not one the stimulus describes.

On an inference question, the rule is strict: judge only what the passage states, and pick the option that follows with the least added baggage.

What the passage actually gives you about vote movement

Exactly one mechanism. 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."  That's the only flow of votes the passage establishes - from one major party to the third. The passage says  nothing  about the two major parties pulling voters from each other.

So you're not assuming "B can't gain a single voter." You're simply refusing to invent a flow the passage never mentions. Starting from  50 - 50 , the only stated movement leaves one party below  50%  and the other at roughly  50% .

The word that seals it

Look at B's exact phrasing -  "neither of the major parties is  likely  to capture  much more  than one-half."  It's deliberately hedged. Even if you imagine a stray voter drifting somewhere, "much more than one-half" still doesn't happen. B never claims certainty, so your edge case doesn't break it.

Compare that to the alternative you're picturing: to reject B you'd need the passage to support major-party-to-major-party transfer - and it gives you zero basis for that. That's exactly the move B avoids.

Quick gut-check on the habit

If B had instead read  "neither party  will  capture more than exactly half"  (hard, no hedge), your real-world worry would suddenly have teeth. See how the softeners "likely" and "much more" are doing real work? On inference questions, the hedged option that adds nothing usually beats the clean-sounding one that needs your help.

Answer: B

7193Harsh · Answer

You are correct with concept and it helped me to understand. But, there is just one correction you need to make, you said lets say C takes over A's vote bank by 10%, which is 5vote(10%of50) but you decrease A's vote by 10. so either write by 10 votes or change A remaing votes 45 and of C-5.

parthoupadhyay17 · Answer

Hi, please evaluate my process of elimination for this question:

(A) No mention about the political platform 
(B) Only option, when added to the argument makes sense.
(C)Nothing about voters who never voted.
(D)No mention about the political stance of the parties
(E)No discussion about the founders of political party in the argument

guddo · Answer

Your eliminations for (A), (C), (D), and (E) are fine: those choices introduce ideas not supported by the passage.

For (B), I would phrase it more precisely. This is an inference question, so we are not “adding” (B) to the argument. Rather, (B)  follows from  the given facts: if voters were split equally before the third-party candidate entered, and the third-party candidate draws voters from only one major candidate, then one major candidate drops below half while the other stays around  one-half .

So your POE is good, just be careful with the wording for (B).

egmat · Answer

Hi parthoupadhyay17,

Your overall process is solid, and you landed on the right answer. Two of your one-liners are exactly right, but let me sharpen two of them so the reasoning is airtight, because on harder questions the  label  you put on a wrong answer is what protects you.

Your C, D, and E are perfect.  The passage says nothing about brand-new voters, political stance, or who founds the third party. "Not discussed - eliminate" is the correct move for all three.

Fix the reason for (A)

You wrote "no mention about the political platform." But (A) isn't just  unmentioned  - it's  directly contradicted . The stimulus says the third party "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." That's an  unequal  draw. (A) claims the third party "will draw its voters  equally  from the two major parties."

So (A) fails for a stronger reason than C/D/E: it says the opposite of what the passage states. Keep these two flaws separate in your head -  out of scope  (silent) vs.  contradiction  (clashes). They feel similar but they're different tools.

Tighten your reason for (B)

You called (B) "the only option that, when added to the argument, makes sense." On an  inference  question, the test is stricter than "makes sense" - it must  follow  from the premises with nothing added. Here it does:

- Start at  50 - 50 .
- The third party pulls votes from  only one  side; the other side is untouched, so it keeps ~ 50% .
- The targeted side drops below  50% .
- Total is still  100%  split three ways -  neither  major party gets much more than half.

Notice (B)'s hedged wording - " likely " and " much more than  one-half." That softness is deliberate; it makes (B) easy to prove and is a classic sign of a correct inference answer.

Bottom line: right answer, right instincts - just name (A)'s flaw as  contradiction  and hold (B) to the  must-follow  standard rather than  makes sense .

Answer: B

In a political system with only two major parties, the entrance of a

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In a political system with only two major parties, the entrance of a

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards