Critical Reasoning

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

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.

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)

(A) for Auckland

Nice explanation by Jose.

Yes, A looks OK