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.（B）
(E) The founders of a third party are likely to be a coalition consisting of former leaders of the two major parties.
我选的是c，但是不太明白，是瞎选的，各位能不能给点指导？
3rd party will affect ONLY 1 of 2 parties ->affect parties unequally and should not be allowed.
A. Position has nothing to do with the argument.
B. if divided, then each party has 50%(not over 50%). since third party will take away voters from 1 of the 2, but not the other. It can be concluded that no parties will capture more that 50% of the vote.
C. New voters are not part of the original argument.
D. Political stance is not part of the argument.
E. Founders are not part of the argument.
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |