Economist: If the belief were to become widespread that losing one’s job is not a sign of personal shortcomings but instead an effect of impersonal social forces (which is surely correct), there would be growth in the societal demand for more government control of the economy to protect individuals from these forces, just as the government now protects them from military invasion.
Facts
conditional: Everyone believed that growth in societal losing job wasn't your → demand for govt. fault, but society's to fix this
conditional: govt tried to fix this → economic disaster job loss situation
Evaluation
We have multiple conditionals. Do they chain together? Kind of. There is some overlap between the two ideas, since both involve "the government controlling the economy".
The first conditional deals with people wanting that, the second conditional deals with that actually happening.
Goal
We can still see the gist is that people thought society was to blame for job losses, they'd turn to the government to intervene. And if the government intervened, then we'd get an economic disaster.
The contrapositive of that whole chain of events would feel something like,
Since it's not a perfect chain, we should be careful with the wording of the answer choices if they're too strong or too sure of themselves.