Passage Summary: Some people are worried about extremist groups winning elections, but Chapin argues democracy is safe because these groups didn't get most of the votes and only won because the normal parties were fighting each other.

Conclusion: The recent electoral successes of extremist parties do not pose a threat to democracy in those countries.

Reasoning: The extremist parties only won pluralities rather than majorities, and their success occurred only because moderate parties were distracted by internal bickering.

Analysis: Chapin attempts to dismiss a threat by pointing to specific conditions of the extremists' victory. However, the argument assumes that winning by plurality or winning due to moderate infighting inherently makes a party non-threatening to the democratic system. To bridge this gap, we need a 'Sufficient Assumption' that guarantees the conclusion. Look for an answer that states if a party wins under these specific circumstances (no majority, moderate infighting), then it cannot be a threat to democracy. The humor here is found in the classic political trope of moderates being their own worst enemies while the 'extremists' sneak through the middle.