Election victory

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 238
Joined: 10 Feb 2009
Thanked: 9 times

Election victory

by avenus » Thu May 28, 2009 10:48 am
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

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 99
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Location: NYC
Thanked: 43 times
Followed by:9 members
GMAT Score:800

by Jose Ferreira » Thu May 28, 2009 2:19 pm
In my opinion, the Answer is A.

The argument talks about LP's politically savvy move of catering to the rural and semirural groups. Choice A has one key word, "urban," that makes the whole answer irrelevant. We do not know if LP catered to urban groups before 1935, during 1935, or after 1935. Thus, this answer does not help us decide the reasons why LP won the election, according to the conclusion.
Jose Ferreira
Founder and CEO, Knewton, Inc.
https://www.knewton.com/gmat

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: 19 Mar 2009
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:1 members

Re: Election victory

by vinaynp » Fri May 29, 2009 2:44 pm
avenus 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:

(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
Using POE my answer A).

B) Strengthens
C) Semi-Strength.
D) Can help the party to get more votes.
E) Strengthens.

A) It talks about a previous election and the argument is about current election. Hence, my choice A)

Legendary Member
Posts: 1169
Joined: 06 Jul 2008
Thanked: 25 times
Followed by:1 members

by aj5105 » Sat May 30, 2009 3:23 am
(A) for Auckland

Nice explanation by Jose.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 197
Joined: 22 Apr 2014

by nicolette » Sun May 15, 2016 2:56 pm
Yes, A looks OK