PT8.S1.Q20 - principle that justifies both sides of argument

g00g00sh

Can someone explain why B is correct for this question? I find this question confusing, mostly because the way the prompt asks for a principle that if established will prove both sides of the argument correct.

To me B justifies the rehab side of the argument quite plainly, but doesn't touch the demolish portion. We know that the demolishing plan precludes the possibility of the rehabilitating the houses, so B tells us to take the rehab path instead. Does it also justify demolishing because it makes reference to "trying the other approach if the first proves unsatisfactory"--basically, it's saying that both can happen if the first plan doesn't work?

Sami

@Max_henry91 said:
Can someone explain why B is correct for this question? I find this question confusing, mostly because the way the prompt asks for a principle that if established will prove both sides of the argument correct.

To me B justifies the rehab side of the argument quite plainly, but doesn't touch the demolish portion. We know that the demolishing plan precludes the possibility of the rehabilitating the houses, so B tells us to take the rehab path instead. Does it also justify demolishing because it makes reference to "trying the other approach if the first proves unsatisfactory"--basically, it's saying that both can happen if the first plan doesn't work?

So our task for this question is to find a principle that would support either the people who want the houses demolished or those who don't. As long as the answer choice supports one or the other we are good, it doesn't have to address the other side according the question asked.

Your reasoning is correct for why B is the right answer. It supports the opponents of demolition by saying that their way did not prevent demolition of the houses if their way had proved unsatisfactory.

I don't think this answer choice supports the side of people who are arguing for demolishing. It's just saying that we should try the one that leaves the other option still available. The side who wanted things demolished may or may not get their wish depending on how successful rehabilitation proves to be.