Historian:  The Land Party achieved its only national victory in Banestria in 1935. It received most of its support t...

Mehran July 21, 2017

@Miller you can watch the video explanation by tapping the play icon in the top right hand corner of the screen when viewing this question.

You can view this question directly from this message board by tap "View" in the top right hand corner of this screen.

Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

ryan-fadden April 25, 2019

Is it possible to make the assumption that making "no attempt to address the interests of economically distressed urban groups" in preceding elections caused that group to have a LOWER amount of votes for the Land Party, thereby making rural and semirural groups votes more important, and therefore actually strengthening the argument?

Victoria April 27, 2019

Hi @ryan-fadden.

It is possible to make that assumption regarding this passage; however, this does not impact the author's argument or conclusion. The historian is arguing that the Land Party was successful in the 1935 election specifically due to the combination of addressing agricultural and small business groups and the depths of their economic problems. Therefore, what the Land Party did or did not do in previous elections is irrelevant to the historian's argument.

While it is possible that urban groups became disenfranchised by the Land Party neglecting their concerns, there is no evidence to support this so we cannot make the assumption that this impacted voter turnout in 1935.

Hope this was helpful! Let us know if you have any further questions.

ryan-fadden May 1, 2019

@Victoria Hmm I see. An assumption needs evidence, if it doesn't have any it can't be used to strengthen (or weaken) an argument. Got it. Thanks!

Ravi May 2, 2019

@ryan-fadden, let us know if you have any other questions!