PT8.S1.Q20 - Can someone explain the answer choice?

Hizekiel

Found it pretty difficult to understand and wrap my head around.

Matt Sorr

Which question?

Hizekiel

Thought I edited the title, my bad. Question from PT 8 S1 Q 20

ekhydroxide

PT8 S1 Q20

this was my reasoning:

a) does nothing; if it did not have the “unless” and everything written after, it would have supported the opponents of demolition, but the “unless” statement makes it ambiguous.

b) forces us to determine that rehabilitation is the correct choice because one proposal (demolishing the houses) precludes the possibility of trying the other approach (rehabilitating the houses)

c) does nothing; we do not know if the government fundings are secure yet

d) does nothing; “thoroughly investigated” is too generic of a term. is the condition of “thoroughly investigated” met if you research the alternative, or is the condition of “thoroughly investigated” met only if you actually implement the alternative. if the latter is the case, then the opponents’ of demolition proposal would have been accepted; however, the term is ambiguous, so it does not help.

e) does nothing; if this is true, it still doesn’t help us decide if which plan we should pick

feel free to reach out if you have any more questions! hope this helps