Last visit was: 17 Jul 2024, 13:10 It is currently 17 Jul 2024, 13:10
Toolkit
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Sep 2012
Posts: 356
Own Kudos [?]: 966 [57]
Given Kudos: 47
Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Strategy
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V42
GPA: 3.88
WE:Medicine and Health (Health Care)
Retired Moderator
Joined: 10 Oct 2016
Status:Long way to go!
Posts: 1141
Own Kudos [?]: 6310 [13]
Given Kudos: 65
Location: Viet Nam
General Discussion
Director
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Status:Retaking after 7 years
Posts: 860
Own Kudos [?]: 4527 [3]
Given Kudos: 221
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V39
GPA: 3.75
Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Sep 2012
Posts: 356
Own Kudos [?]: 966 [0]
Given Kudos: 47
Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Strategy
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V42
GPA: 3.88
WE:Medicine and Health (Health Care)
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory [#permalink]
Marcab wrote:
Historian: The Land Party achieved its ONLY national victory in Banestria in 1935. It received most of its support that year in rural and semirural areas, where the bulk of Banestria’s population lived at the time. The economic woes of the years surrounding that election hit agricultural and small business interests the hardest, and the Land Party specifically targeted those groups in 1935. I conclude that the success of the Land Party that year was due to the combination of the Land Party’s specifically addressing the concerns of these groups and the depth of the economic problems people in these groups were facing.

Why the preceding elections bear no relevance?
Its clearly stated that this was their only national victory and moreover in this election the Land party focussed on the economic problems of the rural areas.
A states that in no preceding election, the party made no attempt at addressing the economic problems.
So somehow it strengthens the argument.
Moreover by selecting E, we are making an assumption that if more people had come out to vote then they would vote for the Land Party only.
I will stick with E.

Quote:
Why the preceding elections bear no relevance?

Because when the historian concludes ": I conclude that the success of the Land Party that year was due to the combination of the Land Party’s specifically addressing the concerns of these groups and the depth of the economic problems people in these groups were facing."

The historian is referring to the elections of 1935 not the ones before that... What the Land party did (or did not) in elections that preceded those that are being discussed is hardly relevant to the conclusion, or to the question at hand.

Lets take an example of the 2012 presidential elections. The democrats and Barack Obama took the White house and won the key battleground state of Ohio. Lets assume that I am claiming that They won the white house because they took ohio in 2012 for whatever reason. You are trying to strengthen my position :

" The democrats did poorly in Ohio 8 years ago"

Does this answer choice have any bearing on my conclusion in any way (strengthen or weaken)?

Quote:
Moreover by selecting E, we are making an assumption that if more people had come out to vote then they would vote for the Land Party only.

What the historian is saying that

The economic woes of the years surrounding that election hit agricultural and small business interests the hardest

and that the land party targeted these people. If these people come out and vote in large numbers, Would it be beneficial to the Land party or not? Is their a reasonable scenario where one can see Land party benefiting from this increase in voting by a group they have been targeting ??

Originally posted by vomhorizon on 26 Nov 2012, 11:24.
Last edited by vomhorizon on 26 Nov 2012, 11:48, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 221
Own Kudos [?]: 915 [2]
Given Kudos: 4
Schools: LBS '14 (A\$)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Hi Marcab,

In A, whilst it does not necessarily weaken massively, it does not strengthen it either. For the party not to have focussed on those voters before is not going to help them this time, in fact it may weaken slightly, as it means they would not have the long term allegiance.

E however definitely strengthens. If people who are in economic distress are likely to vote, and the Land party is supported by people in distress they will gain from this.

Cheers,

James
Director
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Status:Retaking after 7 years
Posts: 860
Own Kudos [?]: 4527 [0]
Given Kudos: 221
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V39
GPA: 3.75
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory [#permalink]
plumber250 wrote:
Hi Marcab,

In A, whilst it does not necessarily weaken massively, it does not strengthen it either. For the party not to have focussed on those voters before is not going to help them this time, in fact it may weaken slightly, as it means they would not have the long term allegiance.

E however definitely strengthens. If people who are in economic distress are likely to vote, and the Land party is supported by people in distress they will gain from this.

Cheers,

James

Hi plumber.
That was quick. Many thanks.
Don't you think that you are making an assumption in E? Assumption that if people come out to vote, after having their problems addressed, they will vote only the Land party.
I can give you numerous examples where the people have voted for those parties, who did a lot for those people. There can be other reasons as well in lieu of which people don't vote this party.
Director
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Status:Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Posts: 729
Own Kudos [?]: 1897 [2]
Given Kudos: 70
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE:Engineering (Transportation)
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory [#permalink]
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Hi Marcab
You agree that there is thin chance that people will vote for the land party that lends 1% support to the conclusion. The option will be a strengthener even if it lends 1 % support. Moreover its direct that A is odd man out and has no effect on the conclusion.
Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 221
Own Kudos [?]: 915 [0]
Given Kudos: 4
Schools: LBS '14 (A\$)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory [#permalink]
Hi Marcab

I'd just compare these 2 sentences

The economic woes of the years surrounding that election hit agricultural and small business interests the hardest, and the Land Party specifically targeted those groups in 1935

The greater the degree of economic distress someone is in, the more likely that person is to vote

The first sentence is from the question, the second from E. I think that E makes the main sentence much stronger for the Land Party.

Cheers,

James
Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Sep 2012
Posts: 356
Own Kudos [?]: 966 [0]
Given Kudos: 47
Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Strategy
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V42
GPA: 3.88
WE:Medicine and Health (Health Care)
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory [#permalink]
Quote:
Assumption that if people come out to vote, after having their problems addressed, they will vote only the Land party.

As long as the assumption is within reasonable parameters we must consider it, in order to determine whether there are certain scenarios (not out of the scope ) where this statement could in fact strengthen the argument. It would not be unreasonable to accept as LEGITIMATE a scenario where the economically distressed voters go out in large numbers and vote for the party that has been targeting them and there woes specifically.

The AC (A) deals with something that does not refer to the elections under discussion (election of 35). There is no reasonable scenario where this statement can have any effect on the logic in the statement - Simply put, this statement speaks nothing on the elections being discussed based on which the historian is drawing his conclusion.

Hope it helps..
Intern
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Posts: 5
Own Kudos [?]: 14 [3]
Given Kudos: 20
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT Date: 10-03-2013
GPA: 3.6
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory [#permalink]
3
Kudos
(A) In preceding elections the Land Party made no
attempt to address the interests of economically
distressed urban groups.

In option A the statement is given for "Urban groups" and our stimuli talks about "rural and semi rural areas". This is also one of the reason why answer option (A) is not strengthening the conclusion.
Intern
Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Posts: 44
Own Kudos [?]: 19 [0]
Given Kudos: 101
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Human Resources
GPA: 3.33
WE:Consulting (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory [#permalink]
How can option c not strengthen the argument?
Intern
Joined: 09 Mar 2016
Posts: 14
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 10
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory [#permalink]
What is wrong with D?

By saying that D is incorrect, are we not assuming that people will DEFINITELY vote for the party which addresses their issues?
Intern
Joined: 17 Jul 2015
Posts: 12
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 4
Concentration: General Management, Operations
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory [#permalink]
A) In preceding elections the Land Party made no
attempt to address the interests of economically
distressed urban groups.
(Previous year,party won or lost,it's not there in the statetement so it does nothing..neither strengthen nor weekens..so may be)

(B) Voters are more likely to vote for a political
party that focuses on their problems.
(Strengthens)
(C) The Land Party had most of its successes when there
was economic distress in the agricultural sector.
(Strengthens)
(D) No other major party in Banestria specifically
addressed the issues of people who lived in
semirural areas in 1935.
(Strengthens)
(E) The greater the degree of economic distress
someone is in, the more likely that person is
to vote
(Strengthens)
A it is
Manager
Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 97
Own Kudos [?]: 33 [0]
Given Kudos: 616
Schools: Tepper '18
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory [#permalink]
plumber250 wrote:
Hi Marcab,

In A, whilst it does not necessarily weaken massively, it does not strengthen it either. For the party not to have focussed on those voters before is not going to help them this time, in fact it may weaken slightly, as it means they would not have the long term allegiance.

E however definitely strengthens. If people who are in economic distress are likely to vote, and the Land party is supported by people in distress they will gain from this.

Cheers,

James

My answer is also E, because when in the preceding elections Land party did not make any attempts to address the condition of economically distressed people they lost, but when they did they won. Which means that this strengthens the argument that this particular action helped them win the election.

Can you please explain where I am getting this wrong.? I think CR can get really tricky.
Manager
Joined: 01 Feb 2015
Posts: 59
Own Kudos [?]: 17 [0]
Given Kudos: 49
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory [#permalink]
bethebest wrote:
plumber250 wrote:
Hi Marcab,

In A, whilst it does not necessarily weaken massively, it does not strengthen it either. For the party not to have focussed on those voters before is not going to help them this time, in fact it may weaken slightly, as it means they would not have the long term allegiance.

E however definitely strengthens. If people who are in economic distress are likely to vote, and the Land party is supported by people in distress they will gain from this.

Cheers,

James

My answer is also E, because when in the preceding elections Land party did not make any attempts to address the condition of economically distressed people they lost, but when they did they won. Which means that this strengthens the argument that this particular action helped them win the election.

Can you please explain where I am getting this wrong.? I think CR can get really tricky. :(

Per the conclusion, there are two reasons for success of Land Party (or a combo):
- Land Party addressing the concerns of the groups
- Depth of the economic problems

Option E talks about the Depth of the economic problems. It says the greater the degree of the problem for a person is, the more likely that person is going to vote.
Why? Because that's what the argument says.
Manager
Joined: 01 Feb 2015
Posts: 59
Own Kudos [?]: 17 [0]
Given Kudos: 49
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory [#permalink]
(A) In preceding elections the Land Party made no
attempt to address the interests of economically
distressed urban groups.

In option A the statement is given for "Urban groups" and our stimuli talks about "rural and semi rural areas". This is also one of the reason why answer option (A) is not strengthening the conclusion.

This is a good observation. If this is the only reason to choose this option, I agree. However, I do not understand how others in this thread are stating that option A is irrelevant to the argument.

Option A says that in preceding elections, Land party has made no attempt to address concerns.
The argument says Land party achieved its ONLY national victory in 1935.

Wouldn't A strengthen the argument? I think it does because of the word ONLY.

If I try to think of a reason for it to not strengthen, this is what i'm coming up with:

Preceding elections - we do not know which year is being talked about. If it is before 1935, then it would weaken the argument. However, if it is after 1935, it would strengthen the argument. This could be one reason I would select this option.

Manager
Joined: 15 Nov 2016
Posts: 97
Own Kudos [?]: 222 [0]
Given Kudos: 106
GMAT 1: 480 Q34 V22
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory [#permalink]
This argument assumes a lot of things and the conclusion “the success of the Land Party that year was due to the combination of the Land Party’s specifically addressing the concerns of these groups and the depth of the economic problems people in these groups were facing” is based on those assumptions.

We have to assume that the success was absolutely dependent only on the two factors mentioned in the passage and no other factor was involved in making that conclusion.
All the options, apart from A, which is apparently our answer, hinges upon the fact that these were the only two factors responsible for the success.

Option A starts with “In preceding election” which makes me suspicious about this option in terms of relevance. We do not really know if the interests of economically distressed urban groups were really a problem.
Manager
Joined: 30 Sep 2017
Posts: 127
Own Kudos [?]: 128 [0]
Given Kudos: 658
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V38
GPA: 3.8
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory [#permalink]
Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory in Banestria in 1935. It received most of its support that year in rural and semirural areas, where the bulk of Banestria’s population lived at the time. The economic woes of the years surrounding that election hit agricultural and small business interests the hardest, and the Land Party specifically targeted those groups in 1935. I conclude that the success of the Land Party that year was due to the combination of the Land Party’s specifically addressing the concerns of these groups and the depth of the economic problems people in these groups were facing.

(C) The Land Party had most of its successes when there was economic distress in the agricultural sector.

Hi

The way I see C is basically a paraphrase of the underlined portions of the passage. So it would appear to me to add nothing to strengthen the argument. Could anybody please explain where I falter? I guess I've missed something.

Thank you guys!

GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6984
Own Kudos [?]: 64521 [3]
Given Kudos: 1822
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory [#permalink]
3
Kudos
jawele wrote:
Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory in Banestria in 1935. It received most of its support that year in rural and semirural areas, where the bulk of Banestria’s population lived at the time. The economic woes of the years surrounding that election hit agricultural and small business interests the hardest, and the Land Party specifically targeted those groups in 1935. I conclude that the success of the Land Party that year was due to the combination of the Land Party’s specifically addressing the concerns of these groups and the depth of the economic problems people in these groups were facing.

(C) The Land Party had most of its successes when there was economic distress in the agricultural sector.

Hi

The way I see C is basically a paraphrase of the underlined portions of the passage. So it would appear to me to add nothing to strengthen the argument. Could anybody please explain where I falter? I guess I've missed something.

Thank you guys!

GMATNinja

In the first underlined portion of the passage, the author gives us information about when the Land Party "achieved its only national victory in Banestria." Answer choice (C), on the other hand, gives us information about "most of [the Land Party's] successes," which could include local or regional victories.

(C) states that most of these victories occurred during times of distress in the agricultural sector. This pattern strengthens the author's conclusion that the Land Party's national success in 1935 was, in part, due to "the depth of the economic problems people in these groups were facing." Because (C) strengthens the historian's argument, it is not the correct answer.

I hope that helps!
Manager
Joined: 26 Jan 2016
Posts: 100
Own Kudos [?]: 153 [0]
Given Kudos: 61
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory [#permalink]
Each of the following, if true, strengthens the historian’s argument EXCEPT:

(A) In preceding elections the Land Party made no attempt to address the interests of economically distressed urban groups.- no idea. Hold

(B) Voters are more likely to vote for a political party that focuses on their problems.- they voted as their problem was addressed as per argument. Eliminate

(C) The Land Party had most of its successes when there was economic distress in the agricultural sector.- that's y they benefitted from it as per the argument. Eliminate

(D) No other major party in Banestria specifically addressed the issues of people who lived in semirural areas in 1935.- if true, that's y they got majority of vote from these people as per argument. Eliminate

(E) The greater the degree of economic distress someone is in, the more likely that person is to vote- if true, then people voted for this party as stated in the argument. Eliminate

Hence A

Posted from my mobile device
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory [#permalink]
1   2
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6984 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
236 posts
CR Forum Moderator
824 posts