Me too. RIP.

I'm a little late here, but something else that seems to make answer choice A correct (or incorrect, I guess) is that it says "preceding elections".

First, just to restate what we're working with, the conclusion is that the Land Party won because of:

1. Suburban/rural/agricultural/small business economic distress and

2. The Land Party's focus on those most heavily affected by economic distress

Additionally, there seems to be an implicit assumption that suburban/rural individuals are connected to agricultural and small business sectors (?).

So my take on why the words "preceding elections" make A the right choice:

-We don't know anything about the Land Party before 1935.

-What if during the 1935 election, the Land Party also didn't focus on urban voters and won, but still lost in elections before 1935?

-What if nobody lives in Banestria's urban areas ("the bulk of" people live in suburban/rural areas; I took "the bulk of" to mean "most of", which can be anywhere from 51% - 100% of people, although this could very well be an incorrect interpretation).

Not focusing on urban voters in previous years -put in the above contexts- doesn't seem to have any bearing on the outcome of the 1935 election. Therefore it's unclear how it'd strengthen the conclusion.

If anyone disagrees I'm all ears!

-9. Not good.

In this instance, we can allow some leeway in this answer choice, since E fills in the gap even if it includes 50% (and not just "most"). The AC for sufficient assumption doesn't need to be "provable" from the stimulus, necessarily. It just needs to connect the premises and conclusion adequately.

Yep. I approached this literally the same way, and can't see how A is correct. "rarely" is really throwing me off here.

I am interested!

I was confused about the "general economy" part of AC D as well. I think it may be referencing the "major source of income for several countries" line in the first sentence. But then my thought is that if it is a major source of income for other countries, then it would be a little erroneous to assume that it'll be a major source of income to Kalotopia.

Additionally, providing "a variety of products" doesn't necessarily mean benefitting the economy.

Can anyone help me understand this assumption? Anyone!? Asking for a friend. #help (Added by Admin)

Interested

I am interested as well! I have a similar story. Graduated in 2018 with a degree in International Relations and Arabic language. Been working in the legal field in a role similar to being a paralegal since early 2020. I felt turned off from the legal field for a while, until I got to shadow one of the attorneys in my office up close. Funnily enough, I also started the application process (but in 2020). My LSAT scores were trash. Started back up in September this past year and I'm ready to kick everything up to a 10.

We can do this!

I'm wondering if the "even this kind of sacrifice" implies there are other kinds of sacrifices that may be altruistic, or may not be altruistic. Therefore, some. Who knows.