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.

E) The founders of a third party are likely to be a coalition consisting of former leaders of the two major parties.


I know the answer, but not able to wrap my brain around it. Any takers?