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.

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.