Critical Reasoning

In a political system with only two major parties, the entrance of a third-party candidate into an election race damages the chances of only one of the two major candidates. The third-party candidate always attracts some of the voters who might otherwise have voted for one of the two major candidates, but not voters who support the other candidate. Since a third-party candidacy affects the two major candidates unequally, for reasons neither of them has any control over, the practice is unfair and should not be allowed.
If the factual information in the passage above is true, which of the following can be most reliably inferred from it?

(A) 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.
(B) 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.
(C) A third-party candidate will not capture the votes of new voters who have never voted for candidates of either of the two 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.

OA [spoiler]after some discussions!![/spoiler]

I go with option B.

IMO B

two parties have equal voters. introduction of third party, will cause some of the voters from one of the political party will vote for the third party....

Its not B


sorry!!

Anyone still there?

Plz use spoilers & do drop some useful explanation even if other user has dropped one..

We are here to read your comments nad explanations..
U COULD BUILD "UR READERS" LIKE OUR MODERATORS LIKE DANAJ,CR AND OUR GMAT PREP TUTORS WHOS GYAN IS SO ENRICHING AND MAKES ME TO SIT AND READ & UNDERSTAND...

imo A...the statemnt in question says that right now,the third party is expected to have votes only from on the the 2 major parties,the party towards which the voters of third party are bent....but had the third party had equal number of voters for each of the 2 major parties,the case would have been what is stated in A

IMO B and C are 2 contenders.
I chose C over B. The issue with B is that it starts with equal votes for 2 existing parties, but then in the second part of the sentence it says not much more than half of the votes. It should have said exactly half the number of votes.

inference, according to "critical REasoning bible" , is infered from 2 pieces of information in the arguement or is old information which is paraphrased.

in this case, inference is old information paraphrased. C must be correct.

duongthang wrote:inference, according to "critical REasoning bible" , is infered from 2 pieces of information in the arguement or is old information which is paraphrased.

in this case, inference is old information paraphrased. C must be correct.

I am not sure what you mean by old information, but I think C is out of scope. The paragraph states that the 3rd party candidats always takes some votes from one of the major candidates, but it is mute on new voters who have not voted before. Plus the use of 'not' is sort of extreme.

My vote is for B. I like A, but it requires a huge leap of faith, which inference questions are not meant to do.

Not sure why B is not the answer here. Afterall, the passage does mention that the third party can only attract voters who are not sure of a party to vote for. And that is what B confirms. If the voters were sure of which party they need to vote for, there would be nothing for the third party to attract.

A. If the third party has a position that is 50% party A and 50% party B it'll attract an equal number from each side per the stimulus.

A-no evidence
B-Untrue, if two parties have the same vote, no party will win the election.
D-no evidence
E-no evidence

C should be the answer b/c "The third-party candidate always attracts some of the voters who might otherwise have voted for one of the two major candidates, but not voters who support the other candidate."
Actually, C didn't make much sense to me but little better than the others.
If anyone knows the answer and the better explanation, please help us out!

IMO B[this isn't best choice but seems least flawed

OA plz

gmatmachoman wrote:In a political system with only two major parties, the entrance of a third-party candidate into an election race damages the chances of only one of the two major candidates. The third-party candidate always attracts some of the voters who might otherwise have voted for one of the two major candidates, but not voters who support the other candidate. Since a third-party candidacy affects the two major candidates unequally, for reasons neither of them has any control over, the practice is unfair and should not be allowed.
If the factual information in the passage above is true, which of the following can be most reliably inferred from it?

(A) 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.
(B) 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.
(C) A third-party candidate will not capture the votes of new voters who have never voted for candidates of either of the two 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.

OA [spoiler]after some discussions!![/spoiler]

OA Please

OA C

Am I looking something wrong? I just found the OA as B through Google.

Let me know what is the source of the question?