Summarize Argument
The economist argues that we should not assume that the profit motive is to blame for any homelessness that results from a lack of housing. (Homelessness resulting from other causes is not addressed in this argument.) The reason, the economist says, is that investors do actually build housing if they can profit from it. The conclusion is further supported by a claim that it’s unrealistic to ask investors to build housing in a poor market. This all suggests that market conditions may be the cause of insufficient housing, not the profit motive.
Identify Argument Part
The phrase “To the extent that homelessness arises from a lack of available housing” defines the scope of the argument: the economist is only discussing the portion of homelessness caused by lack of housing, not any remainder arising from other causes.
A
It limits the application of the argument to a part of the problem.
This is exactly what the phrase identified does. It tells us that the economist’s argument only focuses on some situations of homelessness, meaning that the argument needn’t address every single case—only those caused by a housing shortage.
B
It suggests that the primary cause of homelessness is lack of available housing.
The phrase identified never compares lack of available housing with any other causes of homelessness, nor does it say one is a greater cause than the other. In fact, nothing in the argument does this.
C
It is offered as evidence crucial to the conclusion.
The phrase identified doesn’t support the conclusion, just limits its scope. Just saying that some homelessness may arise from a lack of housing does not lead to the conclusion that the profit motive may not be to blame.
D
It expresses the conclusion to be argued for.
The argument is not designed to support the phrase identified. Nothing else the economist says implies that some homelessness is caused by housing shortage; instead, the argument supports a conclusion about the blameworthiness of the profit motive.
E
It suggests a possible solution to the problem of homelessness.
This is not something the argument does at all. The economist isn’t concerned with proposing solutions, and no part of the argument suggests how homelessness might be addressed.