Critical Reasoning

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.

I think the answer is C.

Nisha1218 wrote:I think the answer is C.

I don't think it's C because the passage does not mention new voters. My guess is B. What is the OA?

I still think its B. The question is an inferenence questions which means it wouldn't be stated in the stimulus.
What's the OA?

I think it is B

I meant "C."

The answer should be B. There does not seem to be any information in the pasage to support C

However the passage does say that the 3rd party will take votes away from one of the existing 2 parties only.

So if both were earlier getting 50% of the voters with the emergence of the 3rd party one party will get less than 50% and the other will get 50%.

The passage does not give any information on the effect of the entrance of the 3rd parts on people who dont vote so we cannot make any inference on that.

What does OA say?

ri2007 wrote:The answer should be B. There does not seem to be any information in the pasage to support C

However the passage does say that the 3rd party will take votes away from one of the existing 2 parties only.

So if both were earlier getting 50% of the voters with the emergence of the 3rd party one party will get less than 50% and the other will get 50%.

The passage does not give any information on the effect of the entrance of the 3rd parts on people who dont vote so we cannot make any inference on that.

What does OA say?

exactly.

[quote="ri2007"]The answer should be B. There does not seem to be any information in the pasage to support C

However the passage does say that the 3rd party will take votes away from one of the existing 2 parties only.

So if both were earlier getting 50% of the voters with the emergence of the 3rd party one party will get less than 50% and the other will get 50%.

The passage does not give any information on the effect of the entrance of the 3rd parts on people who dont vote so we cannot make any inference on that.

What does OA say?[/quote]

Good expn. OA is B

Option B looks good