返回列表 发帖

[求助]一逻辑

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.
why b?
收藏 分享

我的作题过程:通读选项后觉得除B外,其他包含的信息是原文中没有的。
B:若原来是50%、50% 平分。现在第三者进入,则他的票数必是从50%里减的。因此,任何一个当派的得票不会大于50%,最多是50%。
Robert之家-----我的家园

TOP

选B
只有在两个政党势均力敌的时候,THIRD PARTY 才会产生影响

TOP

thanks a lot

TOP

返回列表

站长推荐 关闭


美国top10 MBA VIP申请服务

自2003年开始提供 MBA 申请服务以来,保持着90% 以上的成功率,其中Top10 MBA服务成功率更是高达95%


查看