This question is a strengthening question, but we do see the word accept here, which really means that we're going to pick out four quote-unquote correct answer choices, circle them, and then bubble in the answer choice that is, you know, the one that we didn't pick out, the one that didn't strengthen.

Now that answer choice doesn't necessarily have to weaken the argument, because that's not what not strengthen means. Not strengthen just means not strengthen. It could be entirely irrelevant to the argument.

So let's see what the argument is. We have the historian speaking to us, says the Land Party achieved its only national victory in Benestria in 1935. So, only time it won. It received most of its support that year in rural and semi-rural areas.

So the economic woes of the year surrounding that election hit agricultural and small business interests the hardest, and the Land Party specifically targeted those groups.

So the historian is explaining to you sort of what happened, how they won. They only won once in Benestria, and that was in 1935. Okay, so what was the country like in 1935?

Well, most people lived on farms, and then this Land Party got most of their support from the people who lived on farms. And during those years, the years surrounding that election, there were economic problems.

And the economic problems hit the farmers and the small business owners the hardest, and the Land Party actually focused on those people's interests.

So he concludes that the success of the Land Party that year was due to the combination of them specifically addressing the concerns of the people whose interests were hurt, the farmers and small business owners, and the depth of the problem those people were facing.

So not only is it that, you know, if I'm a farmer or small business owner, I'm hurt by the economic woes, but it's not just that this Land Party, they're going to address my woes, it's that my being hurt is very deep.

Like that year, I've been hurt deeply by the depth of the economic problems that we were facing.

So that's the argument historians are making. So let's strengthen this argument. Let's make this argument better.

So in the previous year's election, we don't know when it is, but let's say 1930, that year the Land Party did not make any attempt to address the interests of economically poor people living in the cities.

How does that help our argument? I mean, in this year that they won, did they address the problem of people living in the cities? We don't know.

You see, this is a very weird answer choice. It's like, okay, so they did not try to reach out to the poor people in the cities.

The issue here is that with these answer choices that are just kind of irrelevant, their irrelevance makes it hard to pin them down to something.

Like if you encounter an answer choice that says cats like to drink milk, what do you do with that? What does that have to do with our argument?

That's kind of the thing here. Yeah, they're talking about the Land Party, that word is used. Distressed, economically is used. Address the interests, those words are used.

But the way they're put together is just not relevant. Here's the success, here's the conclusion. These are the premises here.

So how does that make these premises support the conclusion more? It doesn't.

See, people, if you focus on my problems, I will be more likely to vote for you. Well, in that case, look at what the Land Party did.

The Land Party focused on, see, we focused on the problems of small business people and farmers, so they're more likely to vote.

So this conclusion is made stronger, or rather, this argument is made stronger because these premises tend to support the conclusion more now.

Because this was an assumption, we made this presumption that voters are more likely to vote for a political party focused on their problems.

What if that's not the case? What if voters actually hated people who focused on their problems?

In which case, this argument would be totally wrecked.

So you see, we identify assumption, we bring it out, we stipulate that it's now a premise that makes the argument better.

See, this also helps. We know they never achieved a national victory ever again, but maybe local victories.

C is telling us most of their successes happened when there was an economic distress in the agricultural sector.

In 1935, what happened, there was a huge, a deep, very severe economic distress in the agricultural sector.

C also seems to help a lot. C tells us there are other instances where this happened.

This happened of economic distress hitting the agricultural sectors and the Land Party doing better in elections.

So this is not the one-off case. There are other instances where this also happens.

C is great too. D says no other major party in Benestre specifically addressed the issues of people who lived in the semi-rural areas in 1935.

So this also helps. E says the greater the degree of economic distress someone is in, the more likely that person is to vote.

E is also great too. The greater the degree of economic distress, that year was really great, the more likely a person is to vote.

So the more likely that these people voted for the Land Party.

So E also helps, which is why this question here, A, is the correct answer choice.