[razor's edge]

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.
??? Answer with a justifiable explanation.....

[rohit_gem2611]

Originally Posted by razor's edge

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.
??? Answer with a justifiable explanation.....

I would go with A...wts the OA

[razor's edge]

Few questions which took me hell lot of a time and are still beyond my scope of comprehension. I shall be glad if someone could help me explain them in detail.

Current farm policy is institutionalized penalization of consumers. It increases food prices for middle- and low-income families and costs the taxpayer billions of dollars a year.
Which of the following statements, if true, would provide support for the author’s claims above?
I. Farm subsidies amount to roughly $20 billion a year in federal payouts and $12 billion more in higher food prices.
II. According to a study by the Department of Agriculture, each $1 of benefits provided to farmers for ethanol production costs consumers and taxpayers $4.
III. The average full-time farmers have an average net worth of over $300,000.
(A) I only
(B) II only
(C) III only
(D) I and II only
(E) I, II, and III

With Proposition 13, if you bought your house 11 years ago for $75,000, your property tax would be approximately $914 a year (1 percent of $75,000 increased by 2 percent each year for 11 years); and if your neighbor bought an identical house next door to you for $200,000 this year, his tax would be $2,000 (1 percent of $200,000). Without Proposition 13, both you and your neighbor would pay $6,000 a year in property taxes (3 percent of $200,000).
Which of the following is the conclusion for which the author most likely is arguing in the passage above?
(A) Proposition 13 is unconstitutional because it imposes an unequal tax on properties of equal value.
(B) If Proposition 13 is repealed, every homeowner is likely to experience a substantial increase in property taxes.
(C) By preventing inflation from driving up property values, Proposition 13 has saved homeowners thousands of dollars in property taxes.
(D) If Proposition 13 is not repealed, identical properties will continue to be taxed at different rates.

[razor's edge]

Yes, it is indeed A. Can you help he explain the reason?

[razor's edge]

Originally Posted by rohit_gem2611

I would go with A...wts the OA

Yes, it is indeed A. Can i help me explain the reason to it?

[atishree]

Originally Posted by razor's edge

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.
??? Answer with a justifiable explanation.....

IMO (A)
(B) A significant increase in the number of third-party candidates would suggest that it is the mass media that affects/decides the results of an election. Not the decline in the importnace of two major parties.
(C) is mentioned nowhere in the paragraph.
(D) Where the paragraph is saying "But it is worth noting that no independent or third-party candidate has won any important election in recent years" it is contradicting the first statement regarding the declining importance of major parties and also supporting the point that they have rather raised more money.
(E) the passage doesn't say that mass media is relatively unimportant but is not the sole decision-maker as is evident from election outcomes the recent years


As the major parties' being able to raise and spend more money is given as an evident that they have not decline & are still influential . This is the assumption made in the passage that (A) The amount of money raised and spent by a political party is one valid criterion for judging the influence of the party.

[Nipunbans]

See Q again:- "In the effort to fire a Civil Service employee, his or her manager may have to spend up to $100,000 of tax money." - So, no manager is interested in Firing his/her employees.
"Since Civil Service employees know how hard it is to fire them, they tend to loaf." - workers know that they won't be fired even if they are doing wrong or useless to govt. that means tooo much job security..
"This explains in large part why the government is so inefficient."

Also, Workers is just used in place of employees.

Originally Posted by razor's edge

Ok. Even if the word 'most' calls for extremity, which should normally be avoided, how does that make the first option correct? I mean where is the reference to the term 'workers' and how on earth will the job security have a negative impact on them??

[mvikred]

Originally Posted by razor's edge

In the effort to fire a Civil Service employee, his or her manager may have to spend up to $100,000 of tax money. Since Civil Service employees know how hard it is to fire them, they tend to loaf. This explains in large part why the government is so inefficient.
It can be properly inferred on the basis of the statements above that the author believes which of the following?
I. Too much job security can have a negative influence on workers.
II. More government workers should be fired.
III. Most government workers are Civil Service employees.
(A) I only
(B) I and III only
(C) II only
(D) I, II, and II
(E) III only

Can i have the correct answer to this question?

I will choose A

we can eliminate B, D and E as III is too extreme
and II says that more employees should be fire, which is not the point of the argument

leaves us with I only and hence option A

Cheers !!

[mvikred]

Originally Posted by razor's edge

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.
??? Answer with a justifiable explanation.....

IMO option A

E, D and C are irrelevant to the argument
B is uncalled for as it compares increase in number to importance, which is total crap

that leaves us with A, which is a reasonable assumption to make !!

cheers !!

[atishree]

A confusing one, plz post your answers with detailed solution:

In Patton City, days are categorized as having heavy rainfall (more than two inches),moderate rainfall (more than one inch, but no more than two inches), light rainfall (atleast a trace, but no more than one inch), or no rainfall. In 1990, there were fewer days with light rainfall than in 1910 and fewer with moderate rainfall, yet total rainfall for the year was 20 percent higher in 1990 than in 1910.
If the statements above are true, then it is also possible that in Patton City
A. the number of days with heavy rainfall was lower in 1990 than in 1910
B. the number of days with some rainfall, but no more than two inches, was the same in 1990 as in 1910
C. the number of days with some rainfall, but no more than two inches, was higher in 1990 than in 1910
D. the total number of inches of rain that fell on days with moderate rainfall in 1990 was more than twice what it had been in 1910
E. the average amount of rainfall per month was lower in 1990 than in 1910