Discussion
Each of the following, if true, strengthens the
historian’s argument EXCEPT:
*This question is included in Sample Lesson Set 2: Moderate Questions, question #7
| (A) | In preceding elections the Land Party made no attempt to address the interests of economically distressed urban groups. |
| (B) | ... |
| (C) | ... |
| (D) | ... |
| (E) | ... |
| (F) | ... |
The solution is
Posted: 08/22/2011 05:41
I don't understand the answer here. I chose A because this argument only focused on the year 1935. How does this strengthen the argument?
Posted: 08/22/2011 14:37
"A" is correct, for the reason you cited. If you chose it, then you chose the correct answer. Remember, this is an EXCEPT question, so you're looking for the answer choice that does NOT strengthen the argument.
Choice "A" does not strengthen the argument because:
The argument is about why the Land Party won in 1935.
What was done during years prior to 1935 is not relevant.
Choice "A" does not strengthen the argument because:
The argument is about why the Land Party won in 1935.
What was done during years prior to 1935 is not relevant.
Posted: 02/12/2012 09:22
Answer A can be interpreted to strengthen the argument because the first sentence says that The Land Party's ONLY victory came in 1935...Answer A helps to further that statement by explaining why they lacked the votes necessary to win in previous years. This is, of course, assuming that the first sentence --the writer's explicitly stated thesis-- is what the writer is attempting to epitomize throughout the excerpt.
Posted: 02/12/2012 09:31
Furthermore, the fact that the first statement is the writer's thesis can also be deduced by the correlation between it and the second sentence. The second sentence says that the party addressed semi rural people THAT YEAR [whom it addressed is not the relevant information to my argument]. The noting of the action being THAT YEAR [1935] demonstrates to the reader that the writer is attempting to show why The Land Party was successful in only the election of that year; which also can be inferred from just the first sentence in the abovementioned manner.
Posted: 02/12/2012 09:39
Said "abovementioned manner" refers to simply reading and inductively determining the meaning of the first sentence with the usage of one's knowledge of the definitions of the words, the sentence structure; and both of their respective orientations within the aforementioned first sentence. I will not explain further details of this method; as I deem it unnecessary.
|
Edit
Posted: 02/12/2012 10:20
On a side note, I chose answer E; and did so on the basis that a higher voter turnout does not imply that said voters will, or will be more inclined to; vote for The Land Party. Especially considering that the statement of Answer E did NOT specify who will be more inclined to vote.
So will an admin or someone please explain to me why Answer A is correct and E isn't?
So will an admin or someone please explain to me why Answer A is correct and E isn't?
Posted: 02/15/2012 15:29
Hey Jake,
Here's the 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." (caps are mine)
Choice (A) says that the Land Party didn't previously address the interest of economically distressed URBAN groups. It should be clear to you that the fact that urban groups were not previously dressed had no bearing on the Land Party's 1935 success with rural voters.
As for Choice "E":
It says "the greater the degree of economic distress someone is in, the more likely that person is to vote." And the argument says that "the economic woes of the years surrounding that election hit agricultural and small business interests the hardest." Therefore, rural and semi-rural people WERE more likely to vote.
And the argument also says that the Land Party "received most of its support that year in rural and semirural areas, where the bulk of Banestria’s population lived at the time."
So then, due to economic conditions, rural and semirural people were more likely to vote, and they were more likely to vote for the Land Party. This supports the argument's conclusion.
Here's the 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." (caps are mine)
Choice (A) says that the Land Party didn't previously address the interest of economically distressed URBAN groups. It should be clear to you that the fact that urban groups were not previously dressed had no bearing on the Land Party's 1935 success with rural voters.
As for Choice "E":
It says "the greater the degree of economic distress someone is in, the more likely that person is to vote." And the argument says that "the economic woes of the years surrounding that election hit agricultural and small business interests the hardest." Therefore, rural and semi-rural people WERE more likely to vote.
And the argument also says that the Land Party "received most of its support that year in rural and semirural areas, where the bulk of Banestria’s population lived at the time."
So then, due to economic conditions, rural and semirural people were more likely to vote, and they were more likely to vote for the Land Party. This supports the argument's conclusion.