It is currently 20 Oct 2017, 16:42

### 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

# We have heard a good deal in recent years about the

Author Message
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 288

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 0

We have heard a good deal in recent years about the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2004, 05:27
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 66

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2004, 05:46
'A'

Quote:
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.

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 288

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2004, 05:53
Thx. the OA is indeed A, but why it cannot be D?

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 281

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 0

Location: Germany

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2004, 05:57
A difficult one, between "A" and "D"

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.

E - Not true.

I'd go with D. Eagerly waiting for the OA.

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 850

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2004, 12:51
Sonaketu, I will give this a short in explaining it

Main Point: Reports of the imminent demise of the 2-party system are premature.
Supporting Points:
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€™

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 288

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2004, 23:51
rthothad, thx for the explanation.. it was tough to grasp

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 0

03 Dec 2004, 23:51
Display posts from previous: Sort by