Dapolito: Support The city council recently passed a rent-control ordinance. ███ █ ██████ █████ ██ ███████ █████ ███████████ █████ ███████ ████ ████ ███████ █████████ ███ █████ ███ ██████ ███ ███████ ███ ████████████ ██ ██████ ██████ █████ ██ ███ ██ █████████ ████ ██ ██ ███ ███ ████ █████████ █████████ ██ ████████ ███ ███████ ███ ████████████ ██ █████ ████████
The author concludes that the city council does not have the objective of preserving the quality and availability of local rentals. Why? Because the following:
The city council recently passed a rent-control ordinance.
A recent study shows that rent control increases the price and lowers the quality and availability of rental units.
The conclusion asserts something about the city council’s purpose (objective). But the premises don’t say anything that establishes whether the city council has or doesn’t have the purpose of preserving the quality and availability of local rentals.
Even though the study shows that rent control will hurt the quality and availability of rentals, there’s no evidence that the city council believed that the study was accurate or was even aware of the study. To make the argument valid, we want to establish that the passage of the rent-control ordinance, in light of the recent study, allows us infer the council knew the rent-control ordinance would harm the quality/availability of local rentals.
Dapolito's conclusion follows logically if █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████████
The recent study ██ █████ ████████████ ██████████ ███ █████████ ██ █████████ ██████████████
Rent control is ███ ██ ███████████ █████ ███ █████████████ ██ ███ ████ ████████
The members of ███ ████ ███████ ███ █████ ███ ████ ███████ █████ ████ ███ ███████ ███████████ █████ ████ ████████
Some members of ███ ████ ███████ ███ █████ ███ ████ ███████ █████ ██ ██████ ████ ████ ████████
The city council █████████ ████ ██ ██ █████████ ███ ██████████ ███████