BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Two major candidate

Expert replies
by soumyopriyosaha » Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:36 am
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: B
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by pkw209 » Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:17 pm
a, c,d and e are all out of scope/irrelevant.

political platform, stance, composition, new voters are not important.

also, if you do some simple math you'll see that b works.
Join the discussion

by money9111 » Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:55 pm
agreed... i think B is clearly the winner here. Is that the correct choice?
My goal is to make MBA applicants take onus over their process.

My story from Pre-MBA to Cornell MBA - New Post in Pre-MBA blog

Me featured on Poets & Quants

Free Book for MBA Applicants

Join the discussion

by komal » Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:49 am
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.
INCORRECT : From the premise (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) it is difficult to infer whether 3rd party will attract equal voters from both 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.
CORRECT : This is the most obvious answer... for eg if there were total 100 voters before the emergence of 3rd party and the voters were divided equal (party X gets 50 voters & party Y gets 50 voters), it can be inferred that neither X nor Y would get more than one-half of the votes.

(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.
INCORRECT : cannot be INFERRED from the premise, it is possible that a 3rd party candidate might capture the votes of new voters

(D) The political stance of a third party will be more radical than that of either of the two major parties.
INCORRECT : Out of scope answer choice. the political stance of 3rd party is irrelevant

(E) The founders of a third party are likely to be a coalition consisting of former leaders of the two major parties.
INCORRECT : if the founders are former leaders it is possible that 3rd party attracts equal numbers of votes from supporters of each party
Join the discussion

by Amiman » Wed Jan 27, 2010 3:42 pm
Can anybody explain that before the emergence of 3rd party if the votes get distributed equally between 2 parties then who will win the election? If nobody wins then emergence of 3rd party is beneficial but the passage doesn't endorse that.
Join the discussion