16. 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.
答案是B。这题想不明白是怎么回事，哪位能给我讲讲啊？
该题出得不好
1。B选项中的voters应指第三党如果加入会投他票的那部分选民（选项中应该说明这点）
2。如果第三党加入会投他票的那部分选民各一半投两个大政党，如果有一个政党获全部投票一半以上多很多（假如B错），说明该政党在第三党加入时，仍会是最大党，而另一个党小点，则第三党的加入对选举没DAMAGE，原文却说第三党的加入会DAMAGE其中一个党。这说明将第三党的票平分到两个大党，任一个都不可能得到比一半多很多的票。
3。该题很绕，其实B要说的是两个大党本来势均力敌。所以才会第三党的加入对其中一个党不公平
4。其他选项很容易排除
楼上的，怎么我的理解跟你完全不一样啊？
我的理解是，原题是说：如果第三党加入竞选，会从原来的两大党选民中分走一部分选票。而且第三党只是从其中一党分走选票，而不从另一党分走，所以这种第三党加入竞选对于两大党不公开。
而B选项是说：如果第三党加入竞选前，两大党基本平分选票，那第三党加入后将没有一个党可以得到超过半数的选票。我是觉得这个选项如果没有原题里的那些前提（第三党只是从其中一党分走选票，而不从另一党分走），本来也可以成立的，不清楚这个选项跟题里的那些前提有什么关系。
B is the answer. The question says that third party will only attract voters that would have otherwise voted for one party. Therefore, if neither party has majority votes before the third party comes in, neither will have majority afterwards. The third party will take away some votes from one party, say 1/2 of the votes. The results will be 1/2, 1/4, 1/4. Clear?
One suggestion: pls show some respect to people who answer your questions. Lawyer has his ID. Call him "楼上的" does not sound very polite to me. Thanks!
谢谢mindfree版主和lawyer的耐心解释。但我想你们二位的理解也是不一样的。
mindfree, 我想我开始的理解至少有一部分跟你是一致的（不知道是不是还有别的理解错的地方：））。但是我的问题是：我不明白原题为什么要说明第三党只从两党中的一个党拉走选票，因为不管它是从一个党还是从两个党拉走选票，按B的情况两个党最终都不可能有多于1/2的选票，就象lawyer_1说的，简直就是废话。
lawyer我想我现在已经理解你的意思了，只是觉得如果这么理解这个推理过程实在太复杂了，不敢相信ETS会这么来考我们！
另外想说明的是，称呼lawyer_1“楼上的”并不是我想冒犯谁或者不尊重谁，只是想使用一种显得轻松一些称呼。如果这样称呼带来了任何的误解，请多多原谅！
有时候想也难怪学英语这么难，连讲中文都可能有这么多误解呢。：）
I do not understand...
What if the votes are 6:4 before the emergence of a third party, and 4:4:2 after the emergence?
原本其中一黨是超前的, 第三黨加入後變成跟另一黨勢均力敵? 這也是對原本超前的黨unfair啊? 為什麼一定是5:5?
这道题目出的好像有点白痴。正如caterpillar所说，B选项不需要原文的论述也是成立的。而且原文的论述也有点牵强，为什么说第三党的加入就unfair呢？原文说，第三党会吸引一部分投A的人，但不会吸引投B的人，那说明这部分被吸引的人本来就摇摆不定啊，那说明选B的人本来就比选A的人坚定啊。那第三党的加入不是正好彰显了A的薄弱？
我可不可以这么理解：那些被第三党C吸引过去的人，是讨厌B的人。在没有C的时候，宁可选A也不要选B。所以讨厌B和喜欢B的人是一样多的。但第三党出现以后，反而显得喜欢B的人比较多了。所以是unfair的。
不过ETS既然说是unfair的，不管是否理解都必须作为true来处理。本题如果用排除法就会比较容易理解。A明显与原文不符，C出现新概念“new voters”，D的stance和E的founders无关。只有B了。
攜隱JJ的意思是否: 被第三黨吸引過去的人, 不但討厭B, 也討厭A, 可是, "兩顆都是爛蘋果, 只好選那個沒那麼爛的...", 當好蘋果出現後, 當然轉為選好蘋果, 可是那顆沒那麼爛的蘋果就顯得比最爛的蘋果還沒人要了...
不過如你所說, 還是不要繼續在到底幾比幾上掙扎了...^^
B is the answer. The question says that third party will only attract voters that would have otherwise voted for one party. Therefore, if neither party has majority votes before the third party comes in, neither will have majority afterwards. The third party will take away some votes from one party, say 1/2 of the votes. The results will be 1/2, 1/4, 1/4. Clear?
i however have some different viwers with the reasoning of Mindfree , i do not agree with mindfree that " The third party will take away some votes from one party " because we can not draw the conclusion from the article . the author just argues that the party will only attract voters from the two parties not any other parties, means that the voters either from A party or from B party whose voter would have otherwise voted for one party. therefore the results from Mindfree that 1/2, 1/4, 1/4 will not be concluded definitely .
hope somebody to evaluate or comment on my argument !
i agree with cartpillar that this qusetion is a stupid one , and we very often find such fool qusetions from GMAT . however , i really admire Lawer_1 's sophisticate analysis to the qusetion .
我怎么倾向于C啊,因为如果C不成立,那么与题干中的The third-party candidate always attracts some of the voters who might otherwise have voted for one of the two major candidates不符
题干中的for reasons neither of them has any control over与B的前半句 were divided equally 与B的后半句neither of the major parties is likely to capture much more than one-half of the vote.三者是同一个意思啊,这也能叫做 inferred?
何况题目问的又不是ASSUMP
请NN们指点,多谢!
赞同楼上的MM
B的逻辑没问题，但是C也一样有道理。
有那位能反驳C呢？
题干说的always attract指的是原有的voters，即使C不成立也不影响其正确性。这个3rd party就算吸引了new voters也照样可能吸引原有的，即题干中说的这种情况。
我觉得正因为题目问的不是assumption才可以看到new voters就基本排除C，infer的题目是不大会出现正确答案是不相关内容的选项的，assumption倒有可能是那些第一眼看来不相关的东西，需要进一步考虑其中的逻辑。
该题出得不好
1。B选项中的voters应指第三党如果加入会投他票的那部分选民（选项中应该说明这点）
2。如果第三党加入会投他票的那部分选民各一半投两个大政党，如果有一个政党获全部投票一半以上多很多（假如B错），说明该政党在第三党加入时，仍会是最大党，而另一个党小点，则第三党的加入对选举没DAMAGE，原文却说第三党的加入会DAMAGE其中一个党。这说明将第三党的票平分到两个大党，任一个都不可能得到比一半多很多的票。
3。该题很绕，其实B要说的是两个大党本来势均力敌。所以才会第三党的加入对其中一个党不公平
4。其他选项很容易排除
说实话，你分析得很绕。其实没那么复杂
lawyer 的解释好象违反了题中"第三党只能从其中一个党里分选票"的前提了吧. 这个前提决定了第三党的票是不能分给二个大党的.
我说一下C选项为什么错.
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.
而文中说第三党会拉走 (原两党之一的) 一部分选票. 如果没有第三党,那么不管new voters以前怎么样,现在只能选两党之一. 既然如此, 那么这些new voters就可能是第三党的猎物.
至于B,我仍然有疑问.(B:...voters were divided equally between the two major parties...)
voter是指投票人,而不是选票,怎么能解释为"两党各得50%选票"呢?
lawyer_1得解释虽然将voter解释成了"投票人(第三党的拉票目标)",但似乎也不能说清楚. 例如A党占30%选票,而B党占70%选票,两个党中均有10%的选票可能被第三党拉走.那么不管第三党拉走的是哪个党的选票,都将有一个党的选票多于50%.
我想,这题的B选项是不是将votes误打成了voters?
这题俺觉得有问题,
看了那么多牛人的解释，怎么还是晕乎乎的？！
谁给我浅显的讲一讲啊？！
这题看来看去觉得就是一道阅读题
neither of them has any control over
直接对应B选项中所表达的two major parties势均力敌的意思，其它都是无关选项
B is the answer. The question says that third party will only attract voters that would have otherwise voted for one party. Therefore, if neither party has majority votes before the third party comes in, neither will have majority afterwards. The third party will take away some votes from one party, say 1/2 of the votes. The results will be 1/2, 1/4, 1/4. Clear?
One suggestion: pls show some respect to people who answer your questions. Lawyer has his ID. Call him "楼上的" does not sound very polite to me. Thanks!
赞啊！！分析得好！！
对于原文的2句话有些不理解：
1）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.
第三党吸引了主要两党的选票，而没有吸引非主要两党候选人的选票。
2）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.
因为第三党对于主要党派候选人的影响程度是不同的，两党之中的任何一个都不可能获得更多的选票，这种让第三党假如选举的做法不合理，且应该禁止。
请NN或者斑竹能帮帮看看我的理解对不对，不胜感激。
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |