Critical Reasoning

mundasingh123 wrote:In a political system with only two major parties, the entrance of a third-party radical candidate into an election race has historically damaged the chances of one of the two major candidates. This notion played out in the presidential race of 2000. In this important election the third-party extremist candidate attracted some of the voters who otherwise would have voted for one of the two major candidates, but not voters who supported the other candidate. Because the third-party candidate affected the two major candidates unequally, for reasons neither of them has any control over, the practice of allowing a third-party presidential candidate was unfair and should not be allowed in future national elections.
If the factual information in the above passage is true, which of the following can be most reliably inferred?

A)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.
B)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.
C)A third-party candidate will not capture the votes of new voters who have never voted for candidates of either of the major parties.
D)The political stance of a third party will be more radical than that of either of the two major parties. [Third party grabs a share of one of the two.. it is not majority]
E)The founders of a third party are likely to be a coalition consisting of former leaders of the two major parties. [Out of scope] .

sourabh33 wrote:So Exactly what is the reason for the OA

mundasingh123 wrote:Cool now that enuf ppl have contributed to the discussion , OA is B but the reason is not exactly what sourabh33 stated
Source BTG Practice questions
You may well pray that u dont see such quests on exam day .
I didnt reall get the logic of the OE so i am waiting for an expert to chime in
Ya abid all that quant was just futile

(B) is the credited response.

The suggestion offered in the paragraph is that a thirdparty candidate usually offers extreme viewpoints and a unique platform. By standing, in a political sense, to the far side of one of the major candidates, the third party candidate will attract a fringe percentage from that candidate. But the extremist won't draw votes from the rival candidate. Those voters discount both of the other candidates.
(B) offers an alternative notion that a third-party candidate who politically stands between the major party candidates will draw equally from both. This is a valid and sensible inference to draw. In the passage the third-party candidate is mentioned as a "radical" and an "extremist," which positions her or him to the far right or left. This is the tie-in between the passage and (B).

(A) is incorrect.

(A), a decent choice, speculates on the statistical outcome when a third-party candidate enters an election. While it might be true, if the third-party candidate has any following at all, that it will draw some votes, this choice is not as strong as (B).

(C) is incorrect.

(C) opens a new issue for discussion-uncommitted voters. While an enticing option, (C) introduces information not mentioned in the passage.

(D) is incorrect.

(D) is given in the paragraph as a fundamental characteristic of third-party candidates. It is not an inference.