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

HizekielHizekiel Live Member
edited August 2022 in Logical Reasoning 49 karma

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

Comments

  • AlexLSAT.AlexLSAT. Alum Member
    edited August 2022 802 karma

    Stimulus: There are abandoned and vandalized houses on Carlton Street and they pose a threat to the neighborhood. Both groups at the meeting agree that tearing down the houses eliminated the threat. However, one group says that there was no need to demolish the buildings because the city can help fund and rehabilitate the buildings. The author concludes that since there was overwhelming success in the demolition strategy, that the ones that favored demolition were right and the group favoring rehabilitation was wrong.

    Explanation: The houses could have been rehabilitated before being destroyed! Destroying the houses removes the possibility of rehabilitation, so it is not fair to say that the group favoring rehabilitation was wrong when rehabilitation wasn't tested and is not possible to be tested anymore.

    A: This AC is tricky to parse through, but it actually does nothing at all to help. It's basically saying, "we should take the course of action that results in the most housing for people unless there is a threat to safety." In the stimulus, it is stated that there is a threat to safety, so all this AC is saying is that it is okay to not take the approach that results in the most housing for people. Does this establish that demolishing was then the right decision? Or that the proposal by rehabilitation advocates should have been adopted? Definitely not.

    B. This AC is correct for the reason that I talked about above. Basically, if there are two proposals, and one can limit the possibility of doing the other, than the one that does not limit the possibility should be the one adopted. This is a very strong argument to adopt the proposal advocated by the opponents of demolition.

    C. Only one of the proposals was about renovating, and we don't know about the funding for both proposals. This AC is way off.

    D. Just because demolition is bad doesn't mean that rehabilitation is the right decision. We need to prove that one of the proposals should be adopted over the other, and this AC does not do that.

    E. Okay, so demolishing shouldn't be adopted... but why should we adopt rehabilitation?

Sign In or Register to comment.