大全-1-16

携隐

呵呵，pudding的说法倒通俗形象。这种题目可能包含一些我们所不理解的美国文化和选举方式等等内容吧。需要背景知识才能答题，出现的概率还是相当相当低的。

fly028

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 .

nowandfuture

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!

wanderdreaｍ

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？

Dannie

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。

丑得老婆哭

以下是引用lawyer_1在2004-7-14 11:14:00的发言：

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

顾风

这题我觉得lawyer的分析有道理，其它分析感觉怪怪的

向上爬的猪

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.

小蓓

up

raikey

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?