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..
political parties
This topic has expert replies
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.
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
The OA should be A,
The D is a trap
The D is a trap
Please share your idea and your reasoning
https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org
https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:58 am