PrepTest 123, Section 2, Question 19
Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national(95 more words not shown)
Each of the following, if(6 more words not shown)
- AIn preceding elections(15 more words not shown)
- BVoters are more(12 more words not shown)
- CThe Land Party(14 more words not shown)
- DNo other major(16 more words not shown)
- EThe greater the(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The Land Party won in 1935. Fine—that happened. What I want to question is the historian's explanation of why it happened.
The party got most of its support in rural and semirural areas, but that's also where most people lived. That fact alone doesn't tell us its strategy was unusually successful. What matters is whether targeting the concerns of struggling farmers and small-business owners helped produce the victory.
What were the other parties doing? If they were making the same appeals, I'd want more explanation of why this approach gave the Land Party an advantage. And had the Land Party tried the same approach in earlier elections that it lost? If so, why did it work this time? I also want to know whether the people in the deepest economic trouble were likely to vote. Addressing someone's concerns only helps win an election if it can translate into votes.
What we’re looking for
This is a strengthen EXCEPT question. Four answers will make the historian's explanation more convincing; one won't. Answers addressing those questions about the strategy, the other parties, or voting would help. Our answer is the one that doesn't support the proposed connection between the economic distress, the targeted appeal, and the victory.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
At first, “In preceding elections” sounds promising: maybe this will tell us the Land Party changed its strategy in 1935. But look at whose interests it discusses—urban groups. The historian's explanation concerns the groups the party targeted in rural and semirural areas.
The party could have ignored distressed urban voters in earlier elections and continued ignoring them in 1935. A doesn't tell us whether the relevant rural strategy changed or whether that strategy helped produce the victory. It doesn't strengthen the explanation, so it is the exception we're looking for.
- B
This connects addressing people's problems with winning their votes. The Land Party focused on the concerns of the groups suffering most, and B gives us a reason those people would respond by supporting the party. That helps the historian's explanation, so we eliminate it.
- C
The party tended to succeed when the agricultural sector was in economic trouble. That broader pattern supports the idea that agricultural distress contributed to the 1935 success. It doesn't prove the cause, but it makes the proposed connection more credible. This strengthens.
- D
This answers our question about the other parties. They weren't specifically addressing the concerns of semirural residents. So the Land Party's appeal offered something the other major parties weren't offering, giving us a reason its strategy could have helped it win. That supports the explanation.
- E
The depth of the economic problems now matters to turnout: people in more distress are more likely to vote. The Land Party targeted particularly hard-hit groups, so those groups' hardship could help bring its potential supporters to the polls. That strengthens the historian's proposed connection between severe distress and electoral success.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.