PT5.S1.Q3 - Economy of Plainsville

AspiringAttorney_

Can someone please explain to me why B is right?

Ashley2018-1

Maybe the mayor has a different viewpoint on what is best for the economy; perhaps he believes that building a major highway is the way to help. his viewpoints may differ from the citizens' group but that doesn't mean he has other interests in mind, as stated by the citizens' group.

kkole444

If we are to take everything the citizens say at face value it is easier for me to see what's going on. I always just try and read what they are saying and nothing more and nothing less.

Citizens:
Conclusion-- You must have other interests in mind other than our economy. -(strong statement, needs to be backed up)
Sub conclusion-- If you were really interested in helping our economy you would relocate the revenues to the business park.
Premise-- SINCE(indicator)-- since it would bring in twice the money your highway would.
I keyed in on the phrase 'you must' indicating there is really no other reason why the mayor would be relocating the money elsewhere.
A--Incorrect-- this is not required by the argument, who cares if there is 1 major or 100 the mayor is still building a new one.
B-- Correct--in order for the citizens to claim that the mayor MUST have other intentions the mayor they are assuming that the mayor knows that the mayor knows how much revenue the business park will bring in compared to the new highway.
I thought of it this way--
You know the best way to care/protect for cats.
Mayor: In order to protect cats I am going to force shelters to stop giving food and water to cats. (I love cats I have a furry friend named Salem.)
You: The mayor must have other intentions than protecting cats. (notice you did not say that the mayor is ignorant or straight up hates cats, you said "must have other intentions" side note: other intentions is a huge category that hold all intentions but "other intentions" as its own entity is 1 thing.
What are you assuming?
you are assuming that the mayor knows that feeding and giving water to cats is not the best way to protect cats.
If this was not the case( necessary assumption questions you negate the answer and if it destroys the argument = correct AC) then you have no standing on saying 'must have other intentions' because the mayor could be dumb, cat-hater, or any other reason why the mayor wants to stop feeding cats and it not be the case that its other intentions.

C--incorrect-- we do not care about other benefits(could be a good Strengthen/Weaken AC) the argument is focused on the tax revenue.
D--Incorrect-- what where did the city council come in. This I think is playing on our assumptions that a lot of mayors need city council approval and "just makes sense to say" but this is not needed and we do not know whether or not the mayor needs that or not.
E--Incorrect--this is not true/ needed either. I think this could be a Sufficient assumption( not 100% on that though) the argument is talking about the BEST way. The highway could still be beneficial but not be the BEST/most beneficial.

kyopoyuri

Citizen's group: A new business park would bring in twice the amount of business that your highway would, so if you really cared about the economy, you would've built a new business park.

To make this argument work, the mayor has to be on the same page that a new business park would bring more business than the highway. If the mayor believes that the highway brings in more business, then he could argue that he actually does care about the economy - he just has a different opinion on which is the best option to stimulate it.