请教各位一道老题，伤。。。 - ChaseDream

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.

题干说，第三的party只能从支持这两个party的选民中吸引选票，而不能拉到支持其他的选民的选票。

那么B说，如果在第三个party出现之前，所有的选民被那两个party平均分，也就是一个party有1/2的选民。那么如果第三party出现后，分别或至少从一个party中拉走了一部分选票，那么要不就是那两个party的选民都少于1/2，要不就是至少一个少于1/2。所以正如B最后一句所说，这两个party没有一个能吸引多于1/2的选票。

以下是引用arundhati在2004-7-21 18:56:00的发言：

题干说，第三的party只能从支持这两个party的选民中吸引选票，而不能拉到支持其他的选民的选票。

这像是一个算术题，不知这样说明不明白，请指教！

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.
可是选项并没有指出第三党出现后这一条件啊~

我的理解是，B的意思为：如果，在第三方党派出现前，所有选民平均分配，则没有一个党派（第三方出现前）可以抓住超过50%的选民（暗示有部分人弃权）

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. 我怎么觉得这句话的意思是--第三个政党的竞选人只会对两个政党的一方产生拉票的影响(即不是影响a,就是影响b,但不会同时)

以下是引用arundhati在2004-7-22 17:20:00的发言：
before the emergence of a third party这就是第三党出现后这一条件啊

啊？？？？？。。。。这个不是明明白白的说着CONDITION为EMERGENCE之前么。。怎么会变成第三党出现后了呢？

以下是引用jessica_sj1226在2004-7-22 17:36:00的发言：

所以我觉得c比较好,虽然答案是b(其实b也是对的)

一。关键是理解第三党进入前除两个MAJOR PARTIES，还有OTHER CANIDARE。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。第三党候选人总是吸引那些如果不投他（指第三党候选人）的票，就会投两个主要政党候选人中的一个的票的选民，而不会吸引那些投其它候选人的票的选民。这句话传达了两个信息：1。第三党争的是两个主要党的票。2。还存在其他候选人。

二。B选项的VOTERS指的是第三党加入前投两个主要政党票的选民（如果指全部选民，则后面的不超过一半就是废话了，既然平分了，还有什麽超不超过一半的说法），理解这点很关键。

三。因为投其它候选人票的选民的存在，即两个主要政党的总票小于全部票，所以，将两个主要政党的票平分（第三党加入前），每个政党仍得不到一半以上的票。比如有20M选票，其中18M投两个主要政党候选人，2M投其它候选人。第三政党只会抢那18M的票，不会抢2M的票。现在将18M在两个政党间平分，各得9M，仍然不到一半10M。

四。C错在NEW VOTERS。因为可能这些NEW VOTERS原来就是要投两个主要政党的，第三党的加入，他们会转去投第三党。其实原文就没投票人有没有投过票的信息。