to the top

#20 - Saunders: Everyone at last week's neighborhood

voodoochild
LSAT Master
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:53 am
Points: 1

Can you please help me to understand B)? It says that "If rehabilitation is the option, then go with it" However, argument says that "demolition was better than rehabilitation" Can you please help me?
Steve Stein
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 1168
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:33 pm
Points: 1,249

Thanks for your question. It sounds like you read that principle correctly--it would have advised rehabilitation rather than destruction.

But take a look at the somewhat unique question: which principle would determine, one way or the other, whether demolition was the right thing to do?

Clever question--let me know whether that clears this one up--thanks!

~Steve
Steve Stein
PowerScore Test Preparation
ltoulme
LSAT Leader
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 9:37 am
Points: 15

Hi,

Could you please explain why answer choice (A) is wrong for this question? I interpreted the question stem to say choose the answer that either shows that demolition was right or else an answer choice that shows that rehabilitation would have been right. I thought that (A) showed that demolition was the appropriate choice?

Thanks so much!
Laura
Claire Horan
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 3:03 pm
Points: 237

This is answer choice (A):
"When what to do about an abandoned neighborhood building is in dispute, the course of action that would result in the most housing for people who need it should be the one adopted unless the building is believed to pose a threat to neighborhood safety."

Does the principle addressed in this answer choice "determine that demolishing the houses was the right decision?"

No. Establishing that it was okay not to take the "most housing for people who need it" course of action does not establish that demolishing the buildings is the right decision.

Does the principle addressed in this answer choice "determine that the proposal advocated by the opponents of demolition should have been adopted?"

No. Some people believed that the buildings posed a threat to neighborhood safety so, according to this principle, it was okay to turn down that proposal.
yrivers
LSAT Leader
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:37 am
Points: 70

Could you please expand on why A is wrong? Is it because the stimulus focuses on the safety of the neighborhood in relation to whether the abandoned houses are there or not? I thought A made sense, thinking it makes a similar claim as what's state in the stimulus, "...since the city had established a fund to help people in need of housing buy and rehabilitate such buildings."

Also, why is E wrong?

If you could further explain (a bit more than what's listed above) on why B is correct, I'd appreciate it!
Robert Carroll
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 7:18 am
Points: 436

yrivers,

The problem with answer choice (A) is that it does not allow you decide which position was correct in this situation. If answer choice (A) is the principle we'd use to determine which side had the right idea, we'd have to think about the situation in the stimulus. Everyone agreed that the buildings posed a threat to safety. In such a situation, the principle doesn't tell us what to do. Think about the principle in answer choice (A) as a conditional:

adopt course with most housing :arrow: believed to pose threat

This is an application of the Unless Equation.

Because the necessary condition is fulfilled here, the sufficient condition can be true or false without violating the conditional. Thus it tells us nothing about what to do.

Answer choice (E) doesn't tell you what the right thing to do is. It just says that certain conditions are not sufficient to prove a course of action is right, but it doesn't tell you what conditions would be sufficient to make a course of action the right one. We want an answer choice that proves a certain action was definitely the correct one to take.

Answer choice (B) is correct because it says that, in the relevant situation (we have two proposals and only one would preclude the other), one of those two proposals is definitely the correct one. This proves that one proposal or the other is definitely right, answering what the question asked.

Robert Carroll
bk1111
LSAT Master
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 10:11 pm
Points: 104

Why is D incorrect? I interpreted this answer choice as saying the demolishment plan should not be carried out until all other possible alternatives (in this case, this could include rehabilitation of houses) are investigated. Would this answer choice not determine which proposal should have been adopted, since if the rehabilitation is investigated and fails, the demolishing proposal should be adopted?
AthenaDalton
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 3:54 pm
Points: 292
Location: Chicago, IL

Hi bk1111,

This question asks us to find a principle that, if established, would definitively prove one of the two sides of this debate right.

Answer choice (D) is incorrect because, by its own terms, it makes it impossible for us to determine whether demolishing the houses was the right decision.

Answer choice (D) states up front that no plan that "requires demolishing . . . houses" should be carried out until all other alternatives have been investigated. However, we know that the neighborhood association went ahead and demolished the Carlton Street houses without considering other alternatives. So there's no way that we can know whether demolishing the houses was the right decision, after all.

Answer choice (B), by contrast, can be applied to what happened (demolishing the houses without prior investigation of alternatives) and give us a conclusive answer that the pro-demolition group was wrong.

I hope this helps!

Athena Dalton
biskam
LSAT Master
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:10 am
Points: 121

I was tempted by D but ended up choosing B. I ultimately crossed out B bc my gut saw "no plan" and thought this would be too extreme. After reading Athena's proposal I'm still not sure if I 100% understand why it's wrong.

Is it because it says "plan for eliminating a neighborhood problem THAT REQUIRES DEMOLISHING" means you've already made your decision? Meaning we ultimately have to demolish, which prevents us from figuring out which of the 2 choices was the right decision? Whereas B allows us to determine which is the right decision...

Thanks!
Claire Horan
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 3:03 pm
Points: 237

Hi Biskam,

I don't think I can explain better than Athena did here:

Answer choice (D) states up front that no plan that "requires demolishing . . . houses" should be carried out until all other alternatives have been investigated. However, we know that the neighborhood association went ahead and demolished the Carlton Street houses without considering other alternatives. So there's no way that we can know whether demolishing the houses was the right decision, after all.


The question stem asks us to apply a principle to the stimulus that will determine what decision "should have been adopted." We are asked to do this after the events in the stimulus have already taken place. At this point, answer choice (D) will not help us figure out definitively which decision was the right one.

In contrast, even though the houses are already demolished, the principle in answer choice (B) would lead us to conclude that the opponents of demolition were right because demolishing the houses foreclosed the opportunity to rehabilitate them.

I hope this helps!