GMAT&LSAT CR Test 1st-16th

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.

(E) The founders of a third party are likely to be a coalition consisting of former leaders of the two major parties.

答案：B。我对题目的理解是：因为第三党的出现会从原两党中不均衡的随机吸收走一部分选民，而造成这种在原两党中不均衡吸收的因素又是原两党所无法控制的，因此第三党的出现是不公平的。B的意思是如果第三党出现前，选民在两党之间平均分配，那么这两党谁也没办法得到更多的选民。这似乎是重复原文中两党无法控制选民分配这点。不知我的理解是不是正确。另外C选项说第三党无法得到那些对原两党都不支持的选民。对C的取反就变成了第三党得到的选民是那些对原两党都不支持的那些人。这样就削弱了原文第三党会不公平不均衡的从原两党中吸收选民这样一个说法。既然取反是削弱，那C本身为什么不可以作为一个推断呢？

请大牛牛多多指教：）

B选项你的理解没错，因为第三党派是左右两党实力的主要力量，也就是说，没有第三党派加入，两党实力对等。

C选项的内容文中没有提到，因此，不一定就能infer出这个结论。

什么“取反削弱”？你把我搞晕了！！！建议，别在做题时想那么多理论性的东西。直接考虑题目就得了，好像你和别人聊天还要先分析语法么？直接听就明白了。