We have heard a good deal in recent years about the declining importan

why B is not correct? Would anybody explain on the regard?

1. There is no mention of increase in number of third party candidates in the argument. Hence it is irrelevant to the conclusion.

2. If it had been mentioned in the argument that the number of 3rd party candiadtes has increased, then the assumption would break the conclusion.

Hope i have made my explanation comprehensible

Similar stem but Strengthen question: https://gmatclub.com/forum/we-have-hear ... 05137.html

Context -
We have heard about the declining importance of the two major political parties.
People say mass media decides the outcome of elections, not the power of the parties.

Premises -
No independent or third-party candidate has won any important election in recent years,
In the last nationwide campaign, the two major parties raised and spent more money than ever before in support of their candidates and platforms.

Conclusion-
It seems clear that reports of the imminent demise of the two-party system are premature at best.

Note that the premises tell us about the importance of the two main parties. They do not tell us anything about how mass media doesn't decide the outcome of the elections. They just talk about how the importance of the two parties has not reduced.
The conclusion also concludes only about the two parties - that they are still very important.

(A) The amount of money raised and spent by a political party is one valid criterion for judging the influence of the party.

The argument talks about the amount of money raised and spent by the two major parties to convince us of their importance. So the author is assuming that the amount of money is a valid criterion.
Correct

(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.

We are given no information on the number of third party candidates.

(C) The two-party system has contributed significantly to the stability of the American political structure.

American political structure is out of scope. Also, the role played by the two party system in the past is irrelevant. The point is the present and what will happen in the future.

(D) The mass media tend to favor an independent or third-party candidate over a candidate from one of the two major parties.

The argument does not tell us what the mass media does. Only in the context, it mentions that people say mass media decides and the two major parties are not important now. The author only focuses on why the two major parties are still very important. He doesn't say that mass media doesn't play a role or if it does, then what role it plays.

(E) The mass media are relatively unimportant in deciding the outcome of most elections.

Again, the author doesn't say anything about mass media.

Answer (A)

Hi. I still do not understand why E cannot be the assumption. So if we'd express the conclusion in our own words, it basically says that the mass media do not decide the outcome of the election. Thus, the author assumes (for me) that the mass media is relatively unimportant in deciding the outcome of the election. Then why not E?

The highlighted is incorrect. If I say, "People say that A is not important anymore. That only B decides the outcome. But that is not true. A is still important and relevant" what am I saying? That B is not important? That is not true. I am saying that A is still important. I did not make any comment about B.

Note what the author is trying to tell you - that the two party system is important, for now at least.
He is not trying to establish that media is not important. He is not assuming that media is not important. It is possible that media is important too. Perhaps the media helps us choose between the two major parties. But the point he is making is that two party system is still important.
Hence (E) is not correct.

Question type is ASSUMPTION. Tip #1: The argument has conclusion and premises. Tip#2: We have to negate answer choices to know the right one.

We have heard a good deal in recent years about the declining importance of the two major political parties. —->Background information.

It is the mass media, we are told, that decide the outcome of elections, not the power of the parties.——-> Fact again.

But it is worth noting that no independent or third-party candidate has won any important election in recent years (Why? Are they powerful?), 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 (Why? Is this influential on their acts?).——->Author's evidence (Keywords: worth noting, ever before)

It seems clear that reports of the imminent demise of the two-party system are premature at best.——->This is Conclusion.

(A) The amount of money raised and spent by a political party is one valid criterion for judging the influence of the party. ——>This ties the evidence to support the conclusion. If we negate this, Then it weakens the argument overall.
(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.——>Ok, so what?! Lets negate this. Perhaps two or three other parties istead of one are attributing to the decline in the two. So OUT
(C) The two-party system has contributed significantly to the stability of the American political structure.—-> We don't care their path work. Perhaps better parties are emerging. So OUT
(D) The mass media tend to favor an independent or third-party candidate over a candidate from one of the two major parties. ——> If this true, what abut the second party? Partial approach.
(E) The mass media are relatively unimportant in deciding the outcome of most elections. —-> Ok, so What? Nothing changes in the argument.

Answer is A

WHY CAN IT NOT BE ANSWER 3 SINCE THE IDEA OF INDEPENDENTS ARE ALSO MENTIONED IN THE QUESTION ITSELF

­Just a quick note on the word "influence" in choice (A). This word initially threw me off because it was not directly mentioned in the argument. However, influence runs deep in the argument: 

Third-party candidates never won a major election --> No influence
Major parties spend big bucks on campaigning --> A lot of influence. 

 

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.

Premise: no independent or third-party candidate has won any important election + two major parties raised and spent more money than ever before in support of their candidates and platforms
Conclusion: Two-party system has not declined.

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. -- Yes, coz if not, one of the premises would be broken
(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. --No, it's winning or not that matters rather than the quantity of candidates
(C) The two-party system has contributed significantly to the stability of the American political structure. --No, irrelevant to P-C
(D) The mass media tend to favor an independent or third-party candidate over a candidate from one of the two major parties. --No, even mass media favors someone other than the two parties, the P-C still exists
(E) The mass media are relatively unimportant in deciding the outcome of most elections. --No, it's just a restatement