political parties

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Dubai
Thanked: 6 times

political parties

by shipra » Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:57 pm
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.

confused bw A & D..

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:51 am
Location: Chennai

by arunmmw » Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:46 pm
IMO D,

A - might be next best but i wasnt convinced with the the statement "raised and spent...ifluence of the party"
Regards
Arun

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:26 pm
Thanked: 10 times

by newera » Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:15 am
I actually think the answer is A.

The conclusion is: the two parties actually aren't losing power and influence after all. Why? Because the premise right before that tells us that they actually spend a lot of money. So while it was initially suggested that they are losing power because of a lack of media support, later one the author says, actually, thats not the case because they spent a lot of money.

Whats the assumption? That spending more money is perhaps more influential than media coverage. If not, then its at least a very VALID reason explaining why the 2 party system is still in full force.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 401
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 9:21 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by NSNguyen » Thu Jul 03, 2008 7:35 am
The OA should be A,
The D is a trap
:D
Please share your idea and your reasoning :D
https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:58 am

by peter.p.81 » Wed May 11, 2016 1:08 am
The official answer is A. But I don't understand why? Can anyone explain