Self-study
Argument Breakdown
The question stem here is more complex than usual, and makes reference to the positions taken in the stimulus. Let's start by understanding the stimulus fully, and then we'll return to the question stem when we have more context.
The stimulus is in the context of a neighborhood dispute over what to do with some abandoned houses. Most people favor demolishing the buildings, which is what ended up happening. However, a minority of people had preferred trying to rehabilitate the buildings. Our speaker, Saunders, concludes that the pro-demolition majority were correct and the rehabilitators were wrong. Why? Because the demolition strategy ultimately proved successful.
Objective: Identify a Principle Supporting One of Two Positions
Now that we have some context, let's understand the complex question stem. We're looking for a principle to establish a conclusion, but it doesn't have to align with the argument's conclusion. Instead, the principle should help us choose between the pro-demolition and pro-rehabilitation positions. That means it's fine if the principle supports either position, but it must support one of them.
To find the correct answer, we'll need a rule that bridges the premise-to-conclusion gap to establish one of the two possible conclusions. The correct answer will need to be triggered by the facts in the stimulus so we can be sure it truly applies. If that's successful, it needs to lead to either the pro-demolition or pro-rehabilitation conclusion.
20.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ ████████████ █████ █████████ ████ ███████████ ███ ██████ ███ ███ █████ ████████ ██ ███████ █████ █████████ ████ ███ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ████ ████ ████████
a
When what to ██ █████ ██ █████████ ████████████ ████████ ██ ██ ████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ███████ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ███ ███████ ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ████ █ ██████ ██ ████████████ ███████
(A) almost supports the rehabilitation proposal, but the "unless" condition means it doesn't support either proposal. Because that condition was met—the buildings were a safety threat—(A) can't support rehabilitation. After knowing the buildings are a threat, (A) doesn't support any particular proposition. It doesn't bridge to either conclusion.
To be correct, (A) would either need to cut the "unless" condition, or add an additional condition explaining what to do if the buildings are a threat.
b
When there are ███ █████████ ███ ███████ █ ████████████ ████████ ███ ████ ███ ██ ████ █████ ████████ ███ ███████████ ██ ██████ ███ █████ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ██████ ███████████████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ████ ███ █████████ ███ █████ ███████████ ██████ ██ ███ ███ ████████
(B) is triggered by the stimulus: there are two proposals, and demolition would make it impossible to try rehabilitation. This is only true for demolition; if rehabilitation failed, we could still try demolition. (B)'s sufficient condition is met by the stimulus.
(B) also bridges to one of the two conclusions. The approach that doesn't foreclose the other approach should be adopted. This affirms the pro-rehabilitation conclusion: it doesn't foreclose demolition, so it should be adopted. (B) successfully determines that one of the two proposals should have been adopted.
c
If one of ███ █████████ ███ ██████████ ██████ ████████████ █████████ ████████ ██████████ ███████ ███████ ███ ██████ ████ ████ ███ ██████ ████████ ██████ ██ ███ ███ ███████ ██████ ███ █████████ ██████████ █████ ████ ███████ ████ ████████
(C) isn't triggered by the stimulus, so is not the correct answer. We don't know that only one of the proposals requires government funding. Rehabilitation would certainly require funding, but demolition might also require funding. It's never discussed, so it can't trigger this rule.
d
No plan for ███████████ █ ████████████ ███████ ████ ████████ ███████████ █████████ █████ ██████ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ █████ ███ █████ ████████ ████████████ ████ ████ ██████████ █████████████
(D) doesn't lead to one of the two conclusions, so is not the correct answer. (D) only presents investigating alternatives as a necessary condition for demolition. Because of this, (D) can't actively support either conclusion. It could only eliminate the possibility of demolition, but couldn't affirm either demolition or rehabilitation.
e
No proposal for ███████ ████ █ ██████ ██ █ ████████████████ ██████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██████ ███████ █ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ████████████ ██████ ████ ████████ ██ █ ██████████ ████████████████
(E) doesn't lead to one of the two conclusions, so is not the correct answer. It just explains that majority support is an insufficient reason to adopt one proposal over the other. That still doesn't tell us which proposal to choose, or what reasons would lead there.