GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 18 Feb 2019, 15:18

### 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

## Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in February
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
272829303112
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
242526272812
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### Valentine's day SALE is on! 25% off.

February 18, 2019

February 18, 2019

10:00 PM PST

11:00 PM PST

We don’t care what your relationship status this year - we love you just the way you are. AND we want you to crush the GMAT!
• ### Get FREE Daily Quiz for 2 months

February 18, 2019

February 18, 2019

10:00 PM PST

11:00 PM PST

Buy "All-In-One Standard (\$149)", get free Daily quiz (2 mon). Coupon code : SPECIAL

# Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Current Student
Joined: 03 Sep 2012
Posts: 380
Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Strategy
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V42
GPA: 3.88
WE: Medicine and Health (Health Care)
Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 18 Sep 2017, 18:51
4
17
00:00

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

53% (02:12) correct 47% (02:14) wrong based on 1067 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.

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..

_________________

"When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe, then you’ll be successful.” - Eric Thomas

Originally posted by vomhorizon on 26 Nov 2012, 08:46.
Last edited by broall on 18 Sep 2017, 18:51, edited 1 time in total.
Reformatted question
Senior CR Moderator
Status: Long way to go!
Joined: 10 Oct 2016
Posts: 1366
Location: Viet Nam
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2017, 08:01
8
vomhorizon 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.

Each of the following, if true, strengthens the historian’s argument EXCEPT:

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.

_________________
##### General Discussion
VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1101
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Nov 2012, 09:46
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.
_________________
Current Student
Joined: 03 Sep 2012
Posts: 380
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]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 26 Nov 2012, 10:48
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 ??
_________________

"When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe, then you’ll be successful.” - Eric Thomas

Originally posted by vomhorizon on 26 Nov 2012, 10:24.
Last edited by vomhorizon on 26 Nov 2012, 10:48, edited 1 time in total.
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 266
Schools: LBS '14 (A\$)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Nov 2012, 10:46
1
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
VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1101
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Nov 2012, 10:58
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
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 929
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]

### Show Tags

26 Nov 2012, 11:51
1
1
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.
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 266
Schools: LBS '14 (A\$)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Nov 2012, 14:02
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
Current Student
Joined: 03 Sep 2012
Posts: 380
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]

### Show Tags

26 Nov 2012, 19:10
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..
_________________

"When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe, then you’ll be successful.” - Eric Thomas

Intern
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Posts: 6
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]

### Show Tags

19 Oct 2013, 05:02
2
(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.
_________________

Hit +1 ! If you find my post useful

Manager
Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Posts: 62
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]

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2015, 07:41
How can option c not strengthen the argument?
Intern
Joined: 09 Mar 2016
Posts: 18
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Mar 2016, 11:50
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: 13
Concentration: General Management, Operations
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Mar 2016, 22:46
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: 112
Schools: Tepper '18
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2016, 02:03
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: 73
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Aug 2017, 19:28
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: 73
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Aug 2017, 19:39
(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: 142
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Sep 2017, 06:14
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.
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 3636
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2018, 19:48
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________
Re: Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory   [#permalink] 15 Oct 2018, 19:48
Display posts from previous: Sort by