Critical Reasoning

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.

IMO: A

Just to explain you my reasoning:

conclusion > Reports of declining importance are premature at best.

Premise: 1) No 3rd party guy won the election.
2) Both the parties spent the max money.

Point to think - Why did the spend the money - because their importance was declining and they have to spend more money in campaign to make people realize their importance and hence, win the election.

First I was little disappointing by looking at the choices as I was expecting something like - By spending money one can create importance or one can win the election.

Then somehow 'A' was most close to my own reasoning.

Why not 'D' ?

Why not 'D'?

It is said in the stimulus that the mass media did not decide the outcome in the last elections because no independent or third party had won. So the assumption here is the media would not support the two major parties right?

madhujeya wrote:Why not 'D'?

It is said in the stimulus that the mass media did not decide the outcome in the last elections because no independent or third party had won. So the assumption here is the media would not support the two major parties right?

the connectio you are making is not there. One side claims that the two parties are out, and the mass media decides the outcome. The other side is that the two parties still hold power, since no third party emerged in the last election. This does not necessarily mean that the media supported a third party and lost - it is possible that the media still supported one of the two main parties. The argument is merely saying that the two parties are strong enough between them to prevent third parties from becoming a power - means that the two parties are stronger than the third parties, not necessarily stronger than the media.

At the end of the day, D is not an assumption. It is a strengthening point - if D is right, and the media DID, in fact, support a third party and lost, that would indeed strengthen the opinion that the parties do hold power - but it is not a necessary assumption that we need to make in order to reach the conclusion that they hold power. I don't HAVE to assume that the media lost to the parties - it is possible that the parties have power without winning the battle with the media.

A is indeed an assumption - if from the premise that the parties raseid and spent more money, I reach the conclusion that that they are influential, then I must assume that this piece of information is a valid measurement of influence.