PT3.S4.Q20 - Argument Part Question

maco4538

Can anyone explain their reasoning for PT 3 Section 4 Question 20 - will never understand it for the life of me.

Clemens_

The author seeks to establish the conclusion that increased government spending on low-income housing will not cure homelessness. To establish this conclusion, the author uses as their premise the observation that enough low income housing is already available, according to newspapers. In passing, the author also puts forth the claim that homelessness is a serious social problem.

We now are asked to assess the claim that homelessness is a serious social problem. The stimulus indicates that this claim provides context, and that it does not figure either as a premise or as the conclusion of the author's reasoning. Instead, the claim just illustrates some of the background against which the author takes themselves to argue. (C) captures this: Homelessness may well be a serious social problem, but this is independent of the question how it ought to be fixed.

How could the statement under consideration actually become relevant to the author's argument and its conclusion? For this to happen, the notion of homelessness being a serious social problem would have to come up later again in the argument. Say, for example, the conclusion was "There is at least one serious social problem that cannot be resolved by offering more low income-housing options." If this were the conclusion of the argument, then the statement under consideration would absolutely be necessary. As it stands though, the statement just provides context; it is not itself a part of the argument.