Political System with only 2 major parties..

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 10:27 am
Thanked: 3 times

Political System with only 2 major parties..

by boazkhan » Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:03 am
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?
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1578
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 8:02 am
Thanked: 128 times
Followed by:34 members
GMAT Score:760

by Osirus@VeritasPrep » Tue Jun 22, 2010 12:11 pm
I would choose A. The only two viable answer choices are A and D.

B- This can't be the answer because it directly contradicts the stimulus and the question told you to assume that the stimulus is true.

C- The stimulus says nothing about new voters.

D- I don't think you can infer that the third party candidate is more radical than the candidate that s/he did not take votes away from. It may or may not be true that the 3rd party candidate is more radical than the candidate that s/he took votes from, but since the other candidate is probably on the other end of the political spectrum, it is impossible to tell if the third party candidate is more liberal (Nadar) for example than the other guy is conservative (Bush). I don't know, I for one thought that Bush's facism was very radical.

E- This is just beyond the scope of the argument.
https://www.beatthegmat.com/the-retake-o ... 51414.html

Brandon Dorsey
GMAT Instructor
Veritas Prep

Buy any Veritas Prep book(s) and receive access to 5 Practice Cats for free! Learn More.

Legendary Member
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:1 members

by paes » Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:57 pm
C, although not fully convincing, is looking better than others.

OA please ?

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 10:27 am
Thanked: 3 times

by boazkhan » Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:07 pm
neither of the answer you guys cited is correct. I PMed Testluv. Hope he can help us.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:07 am
Thanked: 5 times

by paridhi » Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:53 pm
IMO B (but I am very unsure)

The stimulus mentions "the entrance of a third-party radical candidate into an election race" which unequally affects the no. of voters. Hence B which mentions that if the third party is a compromise position between the two major parties equal number of voters will be drawn.

Looking for a better explanation and the right answer....

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:39 am
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

by pnk » Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:11 pm
C) no mention of new voters;
D) stance not discussed
E) founders not dicussed

A vs B - B talks abt compromise position but we are not sure whetehr compromsie between parties will be able to equally distribute voters.

IMO A - also bcoz argu says that 3rd party draws voters from only one party...meaning the same people who changed side showed the same tilt towards 3rd party (no change in condition bfore and aftr election). Therefore, if ,before 3rd party came, voters were equally divided...the same split will reman after election also.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 535
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:12 am
Thanked: 87 times
Followed by:5 members
GMAT Score:730

by hardik.jadeja » Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:41 pm
Are you sure the answer is not A?

Have a look at these two threads:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/1000-cr-test ... t1859.html

https://www.beatthegmat.com/two-major-ca ... ent=Boston

The order of options is different but as per the above threads the answer is

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.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 10:27 am
Thanked: 3 times

by boazkhan » Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:30 pm
the OA is B --- This is a question from Smart GMAT practice set.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 535
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:12 am
Thanked: 87 times
Followed by:5 members
GMAT Score:730

by hardik.jadeja » Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:22 am
boazkhan wrote:the OA is B --- This is a question from Smart GMAT practice set.
The answer cannot be option B. Refer these two discussions. I agree to the reasoning provided in links below.

https://www.beatthegmat.com/two-major-ca ... ent=Boston

https://www.beatthegmat.com/1000-cr-test ... t1859.html

If you observe, option A of your question is option B in the above two discussions. Order of C, D and E remains same but the order of A and B is interchanged. I think Smart GMAT has made some mistake in setting the correct order for the options or they changed the order purposefully but forgot to change the answer.

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Wed Jun 23, 2010 5:27 pm
received a pm.

We know from the passage that the author is confining his argument to political systems with ONLY two major parties. If there are only 2 major parties, and no third party, and if voters are equally divided between the two parties, then clearly neither of the 2 major parties is likely to capture much more than one-half of the vote. Thus, choice A must be true.

TAKEAWAY: the right answer to an inference question is something that must be true based on one or more statements; a proper inference need not refer to or integrate all of the information in the passage.

_____

Choice B represents a sufficiency/necessity flaw. We know from the passage that IF there is a third party extremist candidate, THEN there will be an unequal affect on the 2 major parties. Or, contrapositively, IF there is an equal affect, THEN there is no extremist third party. Or, IF there is an equal effect and a third party, THEN the third party is not extremist (or IS a compromise position). Choice B flips around this conditional statement. Of course, it is far easier to see that choice A is correct then it is to articlate why choice B is incorrect...don't over-rely on POE because you can make the job harder than it has to be!
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto