Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory

Question

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

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.

(B) Voters are more likely to vote for a political party that focuses on their problems.

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

(D) No other major party in Banestria specifically addressed the issues of people who lived in semirural areas in 1935.

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

Source: LSAT

Conclusion: 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.
SUCCESS = LAND PARTY’s STRATEGY (concentrating on a major demographic) + ECONOMIC PROBLEMS OF THE DEMOGRAPHIC….
The questions stem asks us to find the one answer choice which either WEAKENS the argument, or leaves it unchanged (does not strengthen it) ..

(A) The preceeding elections have no implications on the election being discussed, which is what the conclusion is focusing on. Therefore this argument is neither strengthened nor weakened by this answer choice (therefore making it the correct choice)
(B) This very clearly strengthens the argument, as it is explicitly mentioned that the Party targeted this group, and this answer choice strengthens the argument .
(C) This answer choice clearly attempts to show that the land party does quite well when it has a situation where the agriculture sector is doing badly and is economically distressed therefore it strengthens the overall argument of the historian.
(D) Because no other party addressed the issue, the workers probably felt more loyal to the one party that did “FIGHT FOR THEM”..This also strengthens the argument
(E) This also clearly tries to establish that DISTRESSED agricultural voters rallied to bring the party that targeted them into power. 
Each choice other then (A) strengthens the argument.

Now if we really wanted to test our logic, we can discuss try to ORDER the choices (BCDE) from the one that Least strengthens the argument to the one that Most strengthens it..

broall · Accepted Answer

I have highlighted important information.

(A) In preceding elections the Land Party made no attempt to address the interests of economically distressed urban groups.
 Correct. "urban groups" is irrelevant. The argumet focuses on "rural and semirural areas".

(B) Voters are more likely to vote for a political party that focuses on their problems.
 This choice is expressed in the passage above. The Land Party focuses on the problems of agricultural and small business, so people in those areas vote for the Land Party. This leads to its victory.

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

(D) No other major party in Banestria specifically addressed the issues of people who lived in semirural areas in 1935.
 This choice also supports the argument. If no other major pary addressed the issues of people, it's clear that the Land Party has won because of its converns on those issues.

(E) The greater the degree of economic distress someone is in, the more likely that person is to vote
 This choice strengthens the argument. If people didn't vote for the party that has addressed their economic issues,
 the Land Party wouldn't have won in 1935.

Marcab · Answer

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.

vomhorizon · Answer

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)?

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 ??

plumber250 · Answer

Hi Marcab,

I'll try and answer your question succinctly....

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

Marcab · Answer

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.

Archit143 · Answer

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.

plumber250 · Answer

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

vomhorizon · Answer

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..

adesai88 · Answer

(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.

evdo · Answer

How can option c not strengthen the argument?

ts30 · Answer

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?

devvratk · Answer

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

bethebest · Answer

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.

Chef · Answer

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.

Chef · Answer

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.

Can someone please correct/explain?

KB04 · Answer

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.

jawele · Answer

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

(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

GMATNinja · Answer

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   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!

kitipriyanka · Answer

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

Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards