逻辑大全-C-1

请教逻辑大全-C-1

Questions 1-2 are based on the following.
We have heard a good deal in recent years about the declining importance of the two major political parties. It is the mass media, we are told, that decide the outcome of elections, not the power of the parties. But it is worth noting that no independent or third-party candidate has won any important election in recent years, and in the last nationwide campaign, the two major parties raised and spent more money than ever before in support of their candidates and platforms. It seems clear that reports of the imminent demise of the two-party system are premature at best.
1. Which of the following is an assumption made in the argument above?
(A) The amount of money raised and spent by a political party is one valid criterion for judging the influence of the party.
(B) A significant increase in the number of third-party candidates would be evidence of a decline in the importance of the two major parties.
(C) The two-party system has contributed significantly to the stability of the American political structure.
(D) The mass media tend to favor an independent or third-party candidate over a candidate from one of the two major parties.
(E) The mass media are relatively unimportant in deciding the outcome of most elections.

答案是A, 请问这道题的结论是什么，我怎么找不到呢？为什么选a呢？请高人指点，谢谢！

前提：the two major parties raised and spent more money than ever before in support of their candidates and platforms.

结论：reports of the imminent demise of the two-party system are premature at best.

A fills the gap.

我主要还是没搞清楚哪个是前提，哪个是结论。感觉信息比较多

reports of the imminent demise of the two-party system are premature at best.

请问at best做什么讲？

gap是什么？ 如何fill the gap?

谢谢！

Lawyer的解释：原文结论是说这两个主要政党立即要消失的报道为时过早。原文有两个证据：还没有独立或第三党候选人；最近的普选两个党投了很多钱（可以给媒体，而媒体可以决定选举结果）。

精辟