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

 It is currently 21 Sep 2018, 22:31

### 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

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

VP
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 1058
We have heard a good deal in recent years about the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jan 2008, 06:26
1
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

71% (01:18) correct 29% (01:51) wrong based on 19 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.
1. 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.
SVP
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 2410
Re: cr 1000 test c 1  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jan 2008, 07:03
marcodonzelli wrote:
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.

1. 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.

A. I am in between A and D but finally select A that directly support the conclusion.
_________________

Gmat: http://gmatclub.com/forum/everything-you-need-to-prepare-for-the-gmat-revised-77983.html

GT

Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 814
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Re: cr 1000 test c 1  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Apr 2010, 02:11
marcodonzelli wrote:
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.
1. 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.

I selected D but later I realised that A is correct.

Reasons:
1. In the stimulus, it is mentioned that: we are told that power of parties doent decide the elections outcome rather mass media decides.
2. An example is given for weakness on 3rd party front.
3. An emphasis is made on campaign expenses (raised and spent more money than ever before in support).

So, we need to find a reason/assumption, which can show that the above contradiction is a valid one. Here, A fits better than D.

In addition to this, D is wrong because there is no mention of FAVOR b/w parties by mass media in the above argument.
_________________

Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2012
Posts: 297
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Technology
GMAT 1: 650 Q48 V31
GMAT 2: 770 Q50 V47
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: We have heard a good deal in recent years about the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jan 2013, 10:58
A good explanation here:
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/100 ... t1530.html

Quote:
My guess is that the author of this question lists A as the correct answer.

1) Some people think major parties aren't as influential.
2) Those people think the media is more influential than the parties.
3) But the two major parties have won all of the recent important elections.
4) And they have raised and spent even more money than they used to.
5) So we don't really have appropriate evidence to say that the two-party system is dying. (NOTE: it does NOT say that the two party system is thriving, that those people are wrong to say the media is influential, etc. It simply says "we don't have the evidence to support that contention yet.")

A) The argument offers sentence 4 as a premise to support the author's conclusion (sentence 5). So the author is assuming that money raised / spent is actually a valid criterion by which to judge the importance of the two-party system.
B) More people may run, but if they don't win, then the major parties aren't suffering a decline.
C) This may be true in general, but it does not answer the specific question - the argument doesn't address the stability (or lack thereof) of the American political structure
D) The author is likely assuming that the mass media does give airtime to independent or third-party candidates. This doesn't necessarily mean that the media favors those candidates at the expense of the major party candidates. If the media just treats them all the same, and the media is the most influential thing, then we would expect SOME ind. / 3rd party candidates to win, but the argument indicates that only the major candidates are winning the important elections.
E) Again, this may be true, or it might even be something we can conclude based upon the argument, but the question is what assumption is necessary to support the author's conclusion. We don't have to assume the media is relatively unimportant - the author's point is not to diminish the media's importance but to say that the the major parties are not declining in importance.

_________________
Stacey Koprince
Instructor
Director of Online Community
ManhattanGMAT

_________________

"Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well."
― Voltaire

Press Kudos, if I have helped.
Thanks!

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 2940
Re: We have heard a good deal in recent years about the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Feb 2017, 03:59
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________
Re: We have heard a good deal in recent years about the &nbs [#permalink] 10 Feb 2017, 03:59
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®.