#feedback Small detail, but "none" is a singular personal pronoun; "If none of the answers look right" should be, "If none of the answers looks right."

From what I can tell, some info in MBT stimuli could be throwaway, like the last drill about public places including that most well-designed public places feature artwork. That was information that could have been the subject of one of the answers but wasn't and didn't affect the overall rule that the stimulus created. This drill, on the other hand, sets up a rule and then provides an ostensible contradiction, which makes it more noteworthy than a throwaway would probably be. Since this is an MBT question with a situation that defies the logical rule established in the stimulus, it holds more importance than a throwaway. I think if the question were an MSS where we couldn't use Lawgic, it could've been different because there wouldn't necessarily be a stringent rule. However, the nature of the MBT's high standard and fact that we have a formal rule and someone "breaking it" make this different than a throwaway and something we have to explain. I think this kind of situation might happen in the LSAT, as well as sometimes having irrelevant information, and we have to decide when it's irrelevant.

#feedback "Blind" refers to when the person on whom the experiment is being performed is unaware of whether they're in the test or control group, whereas "double blind" is when neither the experimenter nor "experimentee" is aware of the group in which the "experimentee" is placed. You might've already known that and not bothered to mention it, haha.

I was thinking something similar. I think the big thing is to focus on the population addressed, economically distressed urban groups. The stimulus doesn't tell us anything about them before or during the 1935 election, so we can't make any inference on their relevance to the election or previous ones (since we just don't know). The biggest thing that helped me was focusing on whether the statement would fit in the argument as a premise and be relevant in helping make the conclusion more convincing. If we take answer (A) at face value and add it in the argument with no other information surrounding it, the argument doesn't get stronger. It just seems out of place as one of the premises, whereas the other answers would help make the conclusion (about two what factors combined made the Land Party successful in the 1935 elections) more convincing. (A) is the only statement that would fail to strengthen the argument if it were included in the stimulus.

I hope that helps/is right!