PT9.S2.Q15 - lucien: public-housing advocates claim

westcoastbestcoastwestcoastbestcoast Alum Member
edited July 2016 in Logical Reasoning 3788 karma
For this particular question, I'm not really sure why answer choice B is correct over answer choice C. In the LSAT, do motives usually apply to reasons relating to self-interest, such as profit-motive? Additionally, aren't presuppositions or assumptions not stated in the stimulus. Maria seemed to be directly attacking Lucien's intermediary conclusion that homelessness is caused by people's unwillingness or inability work.

Comments

  • Accounts PlayableAccounts Playable Live Sage ⭐
    edited July 2016 3107 karma
    Tough question, and you are correct in your definition of a presupposition.

    However, look carefully at L's actual argument. She says this:
    There are some empty apartments that exist (in my building and in my friend's building). Therefore, there are apartments available [this seems actually pretty decent so far]. Since there are apartments available, homelessness is caused by unwillingness to work [This is where the problem exists].

    L never actually states whether or not the homeless are working, she just assumes it. M points this out by giving us evidence that directly contradicts that assumption: a lot of homeless are not only willing to work, they actually ARE working. For that reason, answer B correctly describes M's retort.

    Answer C is incorrect because M doesn't call out L's motives. M would have needed to say something like "Of course you came to that conclusion. You have a financial interest in seeing people go homeless!." M doesn't do anything like that.
  • westcoastbestcoastwestcoastbestcoast Alum Member
    3788 karma
    Hey @"Accounts Playable"! Thanks for the explanation. That helped alot and I can better see the assumption that is being made. I had another, more basic question. Is the conclusion the last sentence of the stimulus or is it the sentence in which Lucien calls out the public advocates for being absurd. I personally thought that lucien calling out the public advocates was the conclusion because the the fact that the houses were empty supports the intermediary conclusion, that homelessness is caused by unwillingness to work or by their inability to do so. This sentence in turn seems to support the idea that the public advocates were wrong in their view that housing was unavailable for homeless people. I had trouble identifying the conclusion properly and it would seem odd that an assumption would be embedded in an intermediary conclusion.
  • Accounts PlayableAccounts Playable Live Sage ⭐
    3107 karma
    I think the "but that conclusion is absurd" sentence is the main conclusion. The argument's purpose is to establish that advocates are incorrect. L is arguing that unwillingness to work is the real cause of homelessness, which implies that lack of housing isn't the real cause.
  • stepharizonastepharizona Alum Member
    3197 karma
    Yeah I agree its almost like the conclusion is split. When I just did this, I had to link the two. It is a great question.
Sign In or Register to comment.