Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory in Banestria in 1935. Support It received most of its support that year in rural and semirural areas, where the bulk of Banestria's population lived at the time. Support 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 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.
The historian hypothesizes that the reason the Land Party won the 1935 election was because it addressed the big challenges the agricultural and small business sectors were facing. Most of the party’s support—and the country’s population—lived in rural areas, and the industries concentrated in these areas were most affected by the economic challenges of the time.
The historian assumes causation from correlation. In other words, the historian assumes the Land Party's victory in the election wasn't due to any other factor—it must have been because of the economic challenges facing the agriculture and small business industries and the fact that the party addressed them.
Each of the following, if true, strengthens the historian's argument EXCEPT:
In preceding elections the Land Party made no attempt to address the interests of economically distressed urban groups.
This does not affect the argument. Whether the Land Party appealed to urban groups facing economic challenges in previous elections is irrelevant to the fact that they sought and won rural and semirural support in 1935.
Voters are more likely to vote for a political party that focuses on their problems.
This strengthens the argument. It reinforces the historian’s assumption that people in the agricultural and small business sectors voted for the Land Party because it focused on their problems (as opposed to some other factor).
Presenting evidence that corroborates (in Strengthen) or conflicts (in Weaken) with the author's hypothesized explanation or the predictions that follow from that explanation.
The Land Party had most of its successes when there was economic distress in the agricultural sector.
This strengthens the argument. It reinforces the historian’s assumption that the depth of the economic difficulties in the agricultural sector made people employed in this sector inclined to vote for the Land Party.
Presenting evidence that corroborates (in Strengthen) or conflicts (in Weaken) with the author's hypothesized explanation or the predictions that follow from that explanation.
No other major party in Banestria specifically addressed the issues of people who lived in semirural areas in 1935.
This strengthens the argument by supporting the historian’s assumption that the Land Party’s focus on certain demographics led to its success. (D) says no other party focused on semirural areas, supporting the idea that this focus contributed to the Party’s success.
Presenting evidence that corroborates (in Strengthen) or conflicts (in Weaken) with the author's hypothesized explanation or the predictions that follow from that explanation.
The greater the degree of economic distress someone is in, the more likely that person is to vote.
This strengthens the historian’s argument. It reinforces the assumption that the depth of the economic problems people were facing mobilized them to vote for the Land Party.
Presenting evidence that corroborates (in Strengthen) or conflicts (in Weaken) with the author's hypothesized explanation or the predictions that follow from that explanation.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic
