Question 19, 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 agriculture 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 specifically addressing the concerns
of these groups and the depth of the economic
problem people in these groups where facing.
First step, we know argument or set of facts?
Clearly, we have an argument here and our
conclusion is, "I conclude that the success
of the Land Party that year"—what year was
that?
1935—"was due to the Land Party specifically
addressing the concerns of these groups and
the depth of the economic problem people in
these groups where facing."
How do we know that?
“The Land Party achieved its only national
victory in 1935 and it received most of its
support that year in rural and semirural areas.
The economic woes of the years surrounding
that election hit agriculture and small business
the hardest, and the Land Party specifically
targeted those groups in 1935.”
So there's our support and you notice that
this is a cause and effect argument.
We have an observed effect that this author
is trying to explain to us.
What is that observed effect?
It is that the Land Party won a national victory
in 1935.
The authors proposed cause?
We look to the conclusion here we see that
it was a combination of two things: The Land
Party specifically addressing the concerns
of these groups, so targeting rural and semirural
areas, and the depth of the economic problems
the people in these groups where facing.
Now that we have the structure of the passage
clear, we have broken down the argument, we
will proceed to the question stem.
Each one of the following, if true, strengthens
the historian’s argument except?
So you'll notice, strengthens but except.
So now we have a Bizzaro Strengthen question.
Now our four incorrect answer choices are
going to strengthen the argument, whereas
our correct answer does not strengthen.
Keeping that in mind, we turn our attention
to (A).
In preceding elections, the Land Party made
no attempt to address the interests of economically
distressed urban groups.
Does that strengthen?
Well it is a very popular answer choice for
students to eliminate because they think that
it does strengthen it by showing where we
didn't have the cause of them targeting these
groups, we didn't have the effect where they
didn't win because this was their only national
victory in 1935.
But (A) is a perfect example of why you must
read carefully on the LSAT, because we did
not talk about urban groups.
We were talking about targeting rural and
semirural areas.
Therefore, (A) does not strengthen and (A)
would be the correct answer.
It's completely irrelevant.
We are not talking about urban groups, we
are talking about rural and semirural areas.
They targeted these areas during their economic
crisis when their economic woes were high
and they had their only national victory.
(A) is completely irrelevant, does not strengthen,
and again highlights that you must read carefully.
Now, lets just check (B)-(E), which obviously
are going to strengthen this argument.
(B), voters are more likely to vote for a
political party that focuses on their problems.
Clearly, (B) strengthens by tying in this
idea that the national party specifically
targeted these groups in the rural and semirural
areas, then they would be more likely to vote
for the Land Party, so (B) strengthens the
argument.
Again, Bizzaro Strengthen question, so (B)
now is incorrect.
We are looking for the answer choice that
didn't strengthen, which was (A).
(C), the Land Party had most of its successes
when there was economic distress on the agriculture
sector.
Again, strengthens by showing consistency.
Before when we had success on behalf of the
Land Party, it was when there was stress in
the agriculture sector.
These are the groups they target, they are
the Land Party.
(C) strengthens, (C) would be eliminated.
(D), no other major party in Banestria’s
specifically addressed the issues of people
who lived in the semirural areas in 1935.
You notice that also strengthens it because
if that was the cause, specifically addressing
the issues of the people who lived in the
semi-rural areas well it strengthens the argument
that no other party did this in 1935.
It strengthens that that is why the Land Party
won, so (D) is out.
(E), the greater the degree of economic distress
someone is in, the more likely that person
is to vote.
Again, strengthens the argument by tying in
this idea that they were in economic distress.
Right?
The economic woes of the surrounding years
of the election hit agriculture the hardest.
So tying that in to this idea of the Land
Party winning a national election, they are
more likely to vote when they are in economic
distress.
So (E) does strengthen and (E) would be eliminated.
Here you see a Bizzaro Strengthen where we
are looking for the opposite now.
The correct answer does not strengthen, where
as the four incorrect answer choices here,
(B) (C) (D) and (E) did strengthen.
