Q19 - Historian: The Land Party achieved

[dan]

19. (A)
Question Type: Strengthen the Conclusion
The historian concludes that the Land Party was successful in part because it focused its efforts in 1935 on rural and semi-rural areas, areas hit hardest by the economic troubles. Notice that answer choice (A) discusses the Land Party’s lack of effort to address the interests of urban groups in earlier elections. This is irrelevant to the argument, and is therefore the correct answer (since it does not strengthen the argument).

The remaining choices strengthen the argument (remember, we want an answer that does NOT strengthen). To see why they strengthen, consider the two points raised in the conclusion:

1. The Land Party was successful because it addressed the concerns of rural and semi-rural areas that were hardest hit by economic issues.
2. The Land Party was successful because of the depth of the economic problems people in these areas faced.

An answer that strengthens the argument will add support to the conclusion.

(B) Strengthens the argument by supporting point #1 above.
(C) Strengthens the argument by supporting point #2 above.
(D) Strengthens the argument by supporting point #1 above.
(E) Strengthens the argument by supporting point #2 above.


#officialexplanation

[stackoutawinner]

I understand why the correct answer is correct - it strengthens a fact (background info) given in the first sentence but does not strengthen the conclusion of the argument nor its premises. Perhaps if it didn't limit itself to preceeding elections, then I could see it strengthening the argument, but it doesn't do that.

However, I'm not satisified that I can tell you HOW answer choice C does strengthen the argument.

It seems like a very broad and global statement spanning over several elections that I'm having a hard time connecting logically to the argument of the 1935 election. It's also a very vague statement "most of its success" - "most" being a relative term that we have nothing to compare it against and "success", in the context of the statement, could be defined in more than just winning.

I know there's something very simple that I'm missing - can you point it out to me?

Thanks in advance!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

Hey Stacks,

Not sure if you caught the main reason (A) is incorrect: urban. Just based on that, you can see that (A) is irrelevant and move on to the next problem.

In terms of (C)...

The conclusion is a claim that the land party had success BECAUSE of a combination of two factors:

(1) They addressed the concerns of those in economic distress.

(2) These people were in serious economic distress (i.e. likely to vote).

If, as it says in (C), the land party had most of its success in areas with economic distress (as defined by the argument), that would certainly validate the author's claim. It makes the causation claim more likely. Does it make the argument perfect? No, but none of the other answer choices do either.

I agree they use "success" in slightly different ways -- in the original argument, "success" is generalized (we can imagine it refers to the fact that the party won, say, the majority of seats in parliment). In (C), "successes" is most likely meant to mean individual victories within that year.

There are very often going to be slight variations like this one, especially on the hardest questions. Your task is to determine if the difference is significant enough to warrant concern. In this case, because (A) is so obviously wrong, and the intended meaning of "successes" is pretty clear, it's not.

Let me know if that helps!

[stackoutawinner]

Thanks Mike. That definitely helped.

Your explanation demonstrates why you're an LSAT legend (at least in my mind)

[jennifer]

I am sorry, I do not understand why answer choice "A" is correct. I am of the opinion that it also strengthens because in 1935 they won their only election. And they semmed to win it because they addressed the citizens economic woes. In the preceding elections, they do not and coincediently as stated in the stimulus they did not win anymore electtions, as we know they only won one.

[ohthatpatrick]

I certainly understand the temptation to think that (A) strengthens, but it is actually irrelevant.

One reason it's irrelevant is that the conclusion is about THIS specific election: its results and what supposedly caused those results.

It frankly wouldn't matter if in preceding elections the Land Party gave stuffed animals to retired fishermen. It won't have any bearing on what the Land Party did in THIS election, and it won't affect our judgment of whether the Land Party's actions this time around, combined with the economic climate, were the real causes for the Land Party's victory.

Another reason that (A) is irrelevant is that it deals with the Land Party making appeals to urban groups.

We were told in the argument that the Land Party specifically targeted agricultural and nearby small businesses (rural and semirural), and the author believes that these rural/semirural people are the reason why the Land Party won this election.

So we don't really know or care whether the Land Party ever reached out to urban groups, either this election or in preceding ones.

Another way to analyze the relevance of Strengthen/Weaken answers is to negate them.

(Most books and teachers won't tell you to do this, so let's just keep this a secret).

If I negated (A), it would say that in previous elections the Land Party DID make some attempt to appease distressed urban groups.

Does that weaken the argument?

No. It's perfectly consistent for me to think that in every election the Land Party makes SOME attempt to appease urban groups.

If an idea strengthens, then its negation would weaken.

For example,
negated (B) says that voters are NOT more likely to vote for a party that focuses on their problems.

This author believes that because the Land Party focused on rural and semirural problems, rural and semirural voters gave the Land Party their support. The negated version of (B) undermines that logic.

You can negate (C), (D), and (E) and you'll find that in each case, the negated version would weaken the original argument.

I don't recommend whipping out the Negation Test as soon as you start working on Strengthen or Weaken questions, but I do use it on answers that confuse me. If I want to know whether an answer is relevant, I will often negate it to see if it has any clear effect on the argument.

Let me know if you have lingering qualms about this problem. I'd be happy to explain it in different words.

[lhermary]

It was between C and A.

I considered C's point because it puts forward as a correlation that was maybe the result of another factor. Maybe the other parties advertising budget was shrunk during economic distress.

please help

why was A a better answer than C

[timmydoeslsat]

This is a strengthen EXCEPT question. So we know that four answer choices will strengthen this argument and one will not.

The problem with A, as others have stated before, is the use of the word urban. We were told about how the Party addressed the concerns of rural and semirural groups.

Had answer choice A said, "In preceding elections the Land Party made no attempt to address the interests of economically distressed rural groups."

...This WOULD be a correct answer as a strengthener. This would have strengthened our conclusion of what caused the Land Party's success in that one election.

This would be giving showing us that without the cause, you do not have the effect.

However, with the real answer choice stating urban, that does not help us whatsoever.


Answer choice C does strengthen the argument by giving us a stronger correlation with what was given in the stimulus.

[jamesquinnw]

Hey Patrick,

While you're obviously correct that "preceding elections" pushes (a) out of scope, the latter portion of (a) WOULD actually strengthen the argument by eliminating an alternative explanation for the Land Party's success. I.e., it would eliminate the possibility that the Land Party's success in the election came via appeals to the urban demographic, which, if true, would contradict the author's assertion that the Land Party's success was due specifically to their appeals to rural/semirural agricultural/small business interests (and the crappy economy, obv).

Actually, part of what you wrote echoes the Atlas LSAT explanation for this question, which basically says "urban demographics are irrelevant to the argument," and leaves it at that. Well, another demographic isn't necessarily irrelevant, because another demographic could've been responsible for the Land Party taking office!

For example, if during the election in question, the Land Party had made appeals to a group of voting Gibbons along with their appeals to the rural/semirural demographics, then it could be possible that it was simply the Gibbons that voted the Land Party into office. In fact, if there were enough eligible Gibbons, the Land Party wouldn't have had to receive a single vote from a semirural/rural person to win the election. Obviously, this would cast doubt on the author's conclusion, since it would mean the Land Party's success hinged on promises of bananas they couldn't necessarily deliver and their pledge to lift the ban on hurling feces, rather than whatever efforts they made to address the economic concerns of semirural/rural peoples.

Same thing with the urban demographic: if the Land Party made attempts to address urban economic woes, then it could've been possible that the urban demographic turned out in droves to cast their votes for the Land Party. Eliminating the possibility that the Land Party made such appeals would therefore lend strength to the author's conclusion.

This is one of those obnoxious half-correct answer choice that require extreme attention to wording to eliminate.

[brandonhsi]

Hi Patrick,

I was looking at your post to explain why (A) is incorrect.

You stated: "So we don't really know or care whether the Land Party ever reached out to urban groups, either this election or in preceding ones."

If you looked the last post of the topic by jamesquinnw, he pointed out the same question I have, answer choice (A) without the word "preceding" I believe would strengthen the argument (by eliminating an alternative explanation).

I didn't see you replied to jamesquinnw's post, but I want to know if jamesquinnw and I are wrong.

Thanks.

I certainly understand the temptation to think that (A) strengthens, but it is actually irrelevant.

One reason it's irrelevant is that the conclusion is about THIS specific election: its results and what supposedly caused those results.

It frankly wouldn't matter if in preceding elections the Land Party gave stuffed animals to retired fishermen. It won't have any bearing on what the Land Party did in THIS election, and it won't affect our judgment of whether the Land Party's actions this time around, combined with the economic climate, were the real causes for the Land Party's victory.

Another reason that (A) is irrelevant is that it deals with the Land Party making appeals to urban groups.

We were told in the argument that the Land Party specifically targeted agricultural and nearby small businesses (rural and semirural), and the author believes that these rural/semirural people are the reason why the Land Party won this election.

So we don't really know or care whether the Land Party ever reached out to urban groups, either this election or in preceding ones.

Another way to analyze the relevance of Strengthen/Weaken answers is to negate them.

(Most books and teachers won't tell you to do this, so let's just keep this a secret).

If I negated (A), it would say that in previous elections the Land Party DID make some attempt to appease distressed urban groups.

Does that weaken the argument?

No. It's perfectly consistent for me to think that in every election the Land Party makes SOME attempt to appease urban groups.

If an idea strengthens, then its negation would weaken.

For example,
negated (B) says that voters are NOT more likely to vote for a party that focuses on their problems.

This author believes that because the Land Party focused on rural and semirural problems, rural and semirural voters gave the Land Party their support. The negated version of (B) undermines that logic.

You can negate (C), (D), and (E) and you'll find that in each case, the negated version would weaken the original argument.

I don't recommend whipping out the Negation Test as soon as you start working on Strengthen or Weaken questions, but I do use it on answers that confuse me. If I want to know whether an answer is relevant, I will often negate it to see if it has any clear effect on the argument.

Let me know if you have lingering qualms about this problem. I'd be happy to explain it in different words.

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, you're right that we could care about urban groups in relation to this election.

I agree with you guys that if this answer were referring to the 1935 election, the one we care about, then you could say that an answer that said "The Land Party didn't expend any efforts towards reaching out to urban groups" would strengthen by helping to rule out an alternative explanation.

As is, it only refers to prior elections, so it's irrelevant to analyzing the causal factors that underlie the success of the 1935 election.

From (A), we have no idea whether the Land Party did / didn't reach out to urban groups in the 1935 election.

If the Land Party is STILL not reaching out to urban groups, that strengthens the argument somewhat by saying that "this causal factor is controlled for in comparing past to present".

However, if the Land Party IS suddenly reaching out to urban groups in 1935, this weakens the argument by introducing another possible causal factor.

Since we have no idea whether the Land Party is / isn't reaching out to urban groups in the 1935 election, we have no way to judge whether this answer strengthens or weakens.

[tara_amber1]

These explanations are all great and I now understand why (A) is correct. However, I just wanted to point something out for anyone else who made the same reasoning mistake as I did by incorrectly choosing (E).

At first glance, I thought we couldn't assume whether the people who are more likely to vote, will vote for or against the Land Party. That's what got me there, and I thought I had it in the bag. BUT, I was on a timing pressure and should have read more carefully. I felt that (E) could easily be a sucker choice.

Plus, like ohthatpatrick describes, negating (E) would totally destroy the argument. If people weren't more likely to vote under greater degrees of economic distresses, then we can't accept the argument in the stimulus.

[andrewgong01]

I can see why the negated version of "D" from your earlier post does weaken your argument because it is saying other parties did the same thing but did not win hence it is not that much of a wining formula. Also, if other parties are doing the same thing then the Land PArty did not win because they were also doing the same thing but for potentially other reasons (e.g. the opposing parties were run by corrupt politicians)

But as "D" stands right now in its un-negated form, I don't see how D strengthen the arguments in that "D" basically means the party had no competition in these districts. Then maybe a reason why the party won is not because of the reasons cited but because there were no competitors and voters had no choice.

[jeanne'sjean]

These explanations are all great and I now understand why (A) is correct. However, I just wanted to point something out for anyone else who made the same reasoning mistake as I did by incorrectly choosing (E).

At first glance, I thought we couldn't assume whether the people who are more likely to vote, will vote for or against the Land Party. That's what got me there, and I thought I had it in the bag. BUT, I was on a timing pressure and should have read more carefully. I felt that (E) could easily be a sucker choice.

Plus, like ohthatpatrick describes, negating (E) would totally destroy the argument. If people weren't more likely to vote under greater degrees of economic distresses, then we can't accept the argument in the stimulus.

Could someone help solve this question?

I was stuck between A and E and finally went wrong with E. My thought is exactly the same, that just from the higher probability of these economic distress-stricken person to vote we have no idea that whom they would vote for. And if this answer choice is correct b/c it can strengthen by not only targeting the second cause (the depth of the economic problems faced by people) but also combining the first cause (it is these people who are more likely to vote for the Party which helps addressing their problem)?

Thanks in advance!

[estellaW580]

These explanations are all great and I now understand why (A) is correct. However, I just wanted to point something out for anyone else who made the same reasoning mistake as I did by incorrectly choosing (E).

At first glance, I thought we couldn't assume whether the people who are more likely to vote, will vote for or against the Land Party. That's what got me there, and I thought I had it in the bag. BUT, I was on a timing pressure and should have read more carefully. I felt that (E) could easily be a sucker choice.

Plus, like ohthatpatrick describes, negating (E) would totally destroy the argument. If people weren't more likely to vote under greater degrees of economic distresses, then we can't accept the argument in the stimulus.

Could someone help solve this question?

I was stuck between A and E and finally went wrong with E. My thought is exactly the same, that just from the higher probability of these economic distress-stricken person to vote we have no idea that whom they would vote for. And if this answer choice is correct b/c it can strengthen by not only targeting the second cause (the depth of the economic problems faced by people) but also combining the first cause (it is these people who are more likely to vote for the Party which helps addressing their problem)?

Thanks in advance!

I am struggling with the very same thing , maybe we are just overthinking it. Some other explanation site just says that people are more likely to vote, and they were specifically targeting these people who were struggling, so it strengthens it, kinda like what you said.